Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL,

"for incorporating and conferring powers upon the Grampian Electricity Supply Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Railways (North Western and Midland Group) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 16th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS (MOTHER'S RE-MARRIAGE).

Mr. J. BELL: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been drawn to the case of the children of the late Private H. D. Phillips, No. 2617, King's Liverpool Regiment, who for the past three years have been receiving an educational grant from the Special Grants Committee; whether he is aware that this grant was stopped last September and that, despite repeated letters on the matter, the mother of the children has only just been informed that, in view of altered circumstances owing to remarriage, the Special Grants Committee are unable to sanction any further grant
for the two eldest children or to award any grant to the youngest child; and whether, in view of the fact that Mrs. Cresswell re-married three years ago and that her circumstances have not altered in any respect during this period, he will have inquiries made into the case?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I am inquiring into this case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Mr. SUGDEN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the desirability of granting full disability pensions to all men with a war disability while they are unemployed, in view of the number of disabled ex-service men among the applicants for Poor Law relief, thus relieving the local rates, which otherwise help to maintain them?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. G. Barker) on the 9th February.

PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Viscount WOLMER: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has been able to give further consideration to the case of Mrs. M. Hamber, of 76, Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale, widow of Sergeant Marsh Hamber, No. 5,751, Royal Irish Fusiliers, who died on active service in the Tirah campaign, 1897, and to the ruling of the Ministry of Pensions on 6th November, 1920, that she is not eligible for an Army pension on the present scale on the ground that her husband died in action prior to the South African War; whether it is the intention of the Ministry of Pensions to distinguish between the widows of soldiers killed in one war and of those killed in another; if not, whether he will take steps to secure that the regulations are amended so that the widows of soldiers in all wars are equally treated; and whether he is aware that the inequality of treatment inflicts a great hardship on an exceedingly small class of persons whose grievance could be redressed without great expense to the State?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The position of widows of this class has been very carefully considered, but I regret that it has
not been found possible to bring within the terms of the Ministry's former war warrants those widows who had no title to pension under pre-Ministry warrants. My Noble Friend is no doubt aware that Mrs. Hamber is in receipt of an allowance of 21s. a week from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this class of person is an exceedingly limited class and that they have suffered exactly the same injury as the widows whose husbands fell in the late War, and on what ground of equity can the Government refuse to treat them in the same way as widows of the late War?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This matter was very carefully considered, and it was found impossible to act in the way suggested.

Viscount WOLMER: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Regular officers retired on reduced pensions on account of disability due to service in wars prior to 1914 have been informed that there is no authority for their pensions being regarded as disability pensions for assessment of Income Tax; and whether it is the intention of the Government in this respect to make any differentiation between officers wounded in former wars and officers wounded in the late War?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The exemption from Income Tax in respect of wounds and disability pensions granted under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1919, applies to the various pensions, etc., enumerated in the Section, whether granted in respect of the late War or of previous wars. If the Noble Lord has in mind a case of a pension which is considered to fall within the terms of the Section and to which the exemption from tax has not been accorded, and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will gladly have the matter investigated and communicate to him the result.

EMERGENCY GRANTS (WITHDRAWAL).

Mr. GWYNNE: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions, if Regulation 4 of the Special
Grants Committee Regulations, as applicable to disabled officers, has been cancelled; and, if so, on what he based his assumption that the need for such emergency grants had ceased?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This Regulation has been revised, and the power to make emergency grants to disabled officers has been withdrawn. These grants were introduced as a purely temporary measure to meet circumstances arising immediately out of war conditions, and their continuance at the present time can no longer be justified.

Mr. GWYNNE: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will see that ex-service men will not lose any benefits they have been promised or are entitled to, on the grounds of economy, whilst doles are given to those who did not serve during the War?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have already stated that so long as I am Minister of Pensions ex-service men shall not suffer in the way suggested.

LABOUR CORPS (W. V. AIREY).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions why the arrears of pension due to William Victor Airey, No. 316905, late private Labour Corps, Identity No. 2/M.A./2409 from 27th July, 1921, to 11th February, 1922, amounting to £33 12s., have not been paid, in spite of many letters addressed to the Ministry of Pensions requesting payment of the same; and why none of those letters have received any answer?

Mr. MACPHERSON: There were peculiar circumstances in this case which accounted for the delay, and I am communicating with my hon. Friend regarding these. In the meantime, I am glad to say that the arrears owing have been paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PILOTS.

Major GLYN: 12 and 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) how many reserve pilots in all are available for service as trained naval and military pilots respectively in case of emergency, how many naval and military officers on the regular establishment of those two services are trained pilots able to fly at
the present time; how far have the pilots recently trained by the Air Ministry been able to satisfy the requirements of the Navy and Army when attached for duty;
(2) how many fully-trained pilots are available for service with the Army and the Navy, respectively; whether the proportion of trained pilots for artillery work, both naval and military, is adequate to the demand, irrespective of trained executive officers of the Navy and Army being lent for the purpose; and whether the Board of Admiralty and the General Staff have expressed their entire satisfaction with the facilities offered by the Air Ministry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): All the 1,862 qualified flying officers now serving in the General Duties Branch of the Royal Air Force are available for service, either with the Navy or Army, or independently. The majority have had experience of working with one or both of the two other Services, but they are not allocated in distinct classes to Navy cooperation and Army co-operation work, nor to artillery work, as a sub-division of either class, the policy of the Air Council being to give all officers the widest possible training and experience. The importance of having a nucleus of officers with highly-specialised qualifications for this kind of work is, however, fully recognised, and two schools, one for Army and one for Naval co-operation, exist for the purpose. Reserve pilots for an emergency will be found, in due course, from the present short service commission officers who pass to the reserve. I have no information as to the number of trained pilots who are still on the active list of the Navy and Army, to which they returned after service with the Royal Air Force in the War. The allocation of air forces for co-operation duties with the Navy and Army is agreed annually between the Air Council and the Board of Admiralty and Army Council when the annual Estimates of the Air Ministry are under consideration. Though the Navy and the Army are satisfied with the qualifications of the pilots when trained, I fear that, in these days of strict economy, it is hardly in the power of any Government Department, for the moment, entirely to satisfy the demands made upon it, whether from within or from without.

AIRCRAFT.

Major GLYN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many machines in all are at present in daily use at home and overseas, respectively; how many other machines could be used in case of emergency complete with trained pilots within a period of 15 days from such emergency arising; and what is the total cost for maintaining each aeroplane in service compared with the general cost of administration of the unit?

Captain GUEST: The answer to the first part of this question is given in the answer to the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. L. Malone) on the 24th February. This includes training machines. I do not consider it advisable, in the public interests, to answer the second part of the question. As regards the third part of the question, it is not practicable to separate the cost of maintenance and administration in the manner suggested.

Major GLYN: Is it not a fact that the cost of administration amounts to about eight times the cost of operating one machine?

Captain GUEST: No. That is a statement which I challenge, and will deal with when the proper time comes.

MEXICO.

Mr. L. MALONE: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received particulars of a secret agreement recently arrived at by the various oil interests in Mexico; whether this agreement was approved by His Majesty's Government; and whether it is now proposed to recognise fully the present Mexican Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Various reports have reached me with regard to this agreement, but I have no definite particulars on the subject. The reply to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MALONE: Is it not the duty of this Department to know about these agreements, and will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I will make inquiries, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to assist me in the matter.

SALONIKA (RECONSTRUCTION).

Mr. L. MALONE: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information concerning the proposals put forward by Greece for the reconstruction of Salonika; whether the British Government have offered any assistance in this matter; and what is the extent of our commitments?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the Greek Government are inviting tenders for the reconstruction of Salonika, but His Majesty's Government are in no way committed to the scheme, nor have they offered any Governmental assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

STANDING ARMY.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the numerical strength of the standing army that is being maintained by the Russian Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As far as His Majesty's Government are aware, the numerical strength of the Russian standing army was on the 1st of January last about 1,200,000.

FAMINE RELIEF.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has reconsidered its decision to refuse relief to the sufferers from famine in Russia?

Mr. G. BARNES: 25.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received the resolutions, among others, unanimously adopted by the Glasgow City Council and the Glasgow Trade Council, urging the Government to grant relief to the non-Bolshevist Russian people stricken by famine; has his attention been called to the statements made by Sir Benjamin Robertson and Dr. Nansen to the effect that money is required for seed for next harvest which cannot be procured in time by voluntary agency; and whether, having regard to the urgency of the matter, he can now reconsider the whole question with a view to making a grant, and thereby possibly stimulate other Governments to do likewise, so as to help in averting even a greater calamity next year?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I regret that it has not yet been possible to come to a final decision in this matter. Perhaps my hon. Friends will repeat their questions on Monday next, when I hope to be in a position to reply to them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every week's delay means thousands more deaths?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am painfully aware of that, and the terrible condition of things.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is the responsible authority in Russia in a position to give guarantees that the relief will not reach the Russian Soviet army, which, we have just heard, consists of 1,200,000 men?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, we have just received a report from a very distinguished Indian officer, who went there for the Red Cross, and he said there is no doubt at all that such relief entering there does go straight to the sufferers.

Lord R. CECIL: Is that report not confirmed by everyone who has been out there, and seen the actual work of relief?

The PRIME MINISTER: That, I believe, is the report brought to us from the American Government. They have distributed very considerable sums in relief, and there is no doubt that it goes straight to the sufferers.

HUNGARY (POLITICAL INTERNEES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will have inquiries made in Hungary as to the number and condition of Socialists and others in that country interned without any charge being laid; how many have been amnestied; and when it is expected to amnesty the rest of the political internees?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The treatment of so-called Socialists and the administration of justice in a foreign country are purely matters of the internal policy of the State concerned. So long as no rights or interests of British subjects are involved, it would be altogether improper for His Majesty's Government to intervene in the domestic affairs of another
independent State as they would be doing by instituting official inquiries such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ECONOMIES.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consult the teachers' organisations with a view to eliciting suggestions from them as to possible economies in the educational services?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any suggestions which the responsible organisations of teachers may desire to put forward, and, if occasion offer, he will not be backward in consulting them himself.

TEACHERS (GRANTS-IN-AID).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the greatly increased salaries now paid to teachers, steps can now be taken to withdraw the grants-in-aid now given to teachers attending evening classes, especially in rural areas, and also for holiday courses?

Mr. LEWIS: Special classes and courses designed to improve the professional equipment of teachers and to enable them to bring to the teaching of particular subjects of the curriculum fresh knowledge and new methods are, in my opinion, very fruitful in securing the best return for the public money spent on the schools. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to say that it would be in the public interest to withdraw all grants-in-aid of such classes and courses and say that the whole of them, especially in rural areas where travelling expenses must be considered, must be defrayed either out of the rates or by the teachers themselves.

SCHOOL AGES (AMERICA AND CONTINENT).

Mr. PERCY: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will give the minimum ages at which children are obliged to attend the elementary schools in America, France, Switzerland, and Germany; the ages at which they can leave such schools; and the educational
cost per head to the respective governments of the children attending such schools?

Mr. LEWIS: In France attendance is obligatory from 6 to 13. In Germany, the United States and Switzerland there is considerable variety of practice as between one State or Canton and another, but I will send the hon. Member such information as I have. I regret that I have no up-to-date material enabling me to give the cost per head to the respective governments of the education of children attending elementary schools.

Mr. PERCY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate approximately the cost per head?

Mr. LEWIS: No, I am afraid it would be impossible for me with the material at my disposal to state the cost per head in foreign countries.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Colonel BURN: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he realises the unequal and differential treatment disclosed by the operation of the new Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, inasmuch as all teachers who have retired, or who will retire, during the 20 years commencing 1st April, 1919, are teachers who have been rendered eligible under this Act for pensions ranging from three times to eight times the pension for which they contracted and were eligible under the Acts of 1898 and 1912, whilst their colleagues who were retired prior to 1st April, 1919, have been excluded from the benefits of the new Act and left to subsist on pensions under the Acts of 1898 and 1912 of about £40, average amount; and what steps does he propose to take to remove this harsh and inequitable treatment of these pioneer teachers?

Mr. LEWIS: A suggestion that teachers who retired on pensions before the Act of 1918 became operative should have their pensions recalculated on the basis of the latter Act was considered and rejected by the House of Commons during the Debates preceding the passing of the Act. My right hon. Friend does not propose to introduce fresh legislation for the purpose suggested.

Colonel BURN: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Education what effect the passing of the Teachers (Super-
annuation) Act of 1918 has had on local pension schemes under which many teachers had been for years contributing to the cost of their superannuation on retirement; how many teachers were so contributing at the time the 1918 Act was passed; and what is the total amount of the contributions returned to these teachers on their being withdrawn from the local pension schemes and transferred to the new Government scheme under which no contributions are required from them?

Mr. LEWIS: The School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, gave teachers an option to continue under any local pensions scheme, to which they may have been subject, or to withdraw there-from and so become entitled to the benefits of the Act. Upon withdrawal a teacher was entitled to be recouped in respect of his past contributions under the scheme in such manner and upon such terms as might, subject to the approval of the Treasury, be agreed upon between him and the persons having the management of the scheme, or, in default of agreement, be determined by the Treasury. The number of teachers who appear to have been contributing to local pensions schemes at the commencement to the Act was about 31,000. I am unable to state the total amount of money returned to the teachers who have withdrawn. I understand that, although the terms of recoupment were submitted to and approved or determined by the Treasury in each case, that Department did not settle the sums actually returned to individual teachers.

Major HILLS: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in drafting the Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, he was aware that teachers who had left the profession some years previously for more lucrative employment or some other advantage, thereby relinquishing in part the small benefits due to them at 65 under the 1912 Act, became eligible at the age of 60 for the much larger benefits of the 1918 Act, while teachers of over 40 years' service, and still serving in 1918, were debarred from the benefits of the 1918 Act; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to remove such inequitable treatment?

Mr. LEWIS: The general principle of the School Teachers (Superannuation)
Act, 1918, was that teachers should not benefit under that Act unless they had served for a prescribed period after the commencement of the Act. The exception to this principle is, that certificated teachers who, at the commencement of the Act of 1918, had acquired by length of service vested rights to pensions on retirement under the Superannuation Acts of 1898 and 1912, are pensioned under the Act of 1918 instead of under the Acts of 1898 and 1912, even though they have not served after the commencement of the Act of 1918. My right hon. Friend cannot accept the contention that either the principle or the exception to it, which I have mentioned, is inequitable.

Major HILLS: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education on what grounds were some teachers approaching the retiring age of 65 granted an extension of their certificate, thereby qualifying them for the benefits of the 1918 Act, while in other cases, to teachers similarly circumstanced, no extension was granted?

Mr. LEWIS: It is provided by Section 1 (2) (a) of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, that a teacher's certificate shall expire on his attaining the age of 65 years, or if the Board, on account of his special fitness, allow his service to continue for a further limited time, then on the expiration of that time. No extension was given unless application was made, and applications in cases in which the Board were not satisfied of special fitness were refused. As regards certificated teachers who attained the age of 65 after 21st November, 1918, the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, would apply.

Major HILLS: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers who were retirable at 65 under the Acts of 1898 and 1912 have retired before reaching 65 under the 1918 Act; what was the average age at which those teachers retired; what is the gross annual amount of their pensions under the 1918 Act; and what would have been the gross annual amount of their pensions at 65 under the Acts of 1898 and 1912?

Mr. LEWIS: The total number and amount of annual superannuation allowances awarded from the 1st April, 1919, to the 31st December, 1921, under the
School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, to teachers who retired before the age of 65 (the great majority of whom were teachers subject to the Act of 1898) were:



£


Men
1,234
143,641


Women
1,879
145,253



3,113
£288,894

The average age of these pensioners was:


Men
61.9 years


Women
61.6 years

It is impossible, without a disproportionate expenditure of labour, to ascertain the amount which would have been payable to these persons if their pensions had been awarded at the age of 65 under the Acts of 1898 and 1912.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest to Ministers that answers of that length should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

LONDON TEACHEES (EXTENSION OF SERVICE).

Colonel BURN: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of teachers under the London County Council scheme to whom, during the two years ended 31st March, 1918, extension of service was granted; and the number under the same authority to whom, during the same period, extension was refused?

Mr. LEWIS: My fight hon. Friend docs not understand what is intended by the reference to the London County Council scheme. The number of certificated teachers whose certificates were extended by the Board on the application of the London County Council during the two years ended the 31st March, 1918, was 109. No application by the London County Council for such extension was refused.

CLASSES (SIZE).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many ordinary elementary class teachers in England and in Nottingham, respectively, have more than 50 on the roll of their classes?

Mr. LEWIS: The number of teachers taking classes containing 50 or more pupils in public elementary schools in England and in Nottingham were, for the year ended the 31st March, 1920, 36,012 and 464, respectively. The total number of classes was 137,346 in England and 863 in Nottingham.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the further overcrowding of these classes will be a sad waste of public money? May I have a reply to that question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of what is waste is a matter of personal opinion. The Noble Lord has his own opinion, no doubt.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HOGGE (in the absence of Mrs. Wintringham): 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education what items are included in administrative and other expenditure forecasted for 1922–23 to amount in all to £14,844,000; and what is the amount expended in each item?

Mr. LEWIS: I presume the hon. Member refers to the figure in Section 6 on page 111 of the First Interim Report of the Committee on National Expenditure (Cmd. 1581). The figure of £14,844,000 for administration and other expenditure includes administration and expenditure in connection with elementary schools for rent, rates, taxes, insurance, fuel, light, cleaning, caretakers' wages, books, apparatus and stationery, repairs to buildings and furniture, and expenditure of a capital nature charged to revenue and miscellaneous charges. The amount of each item cannot be separately stated.

INFANTS (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE).

Mr. S. WALSH (on behalf of Mr. J. Davison): 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education the total number of children under six years of age at present attending elementary schools in England and Wales and the total number of teachers occupied in giving tuition to these children?

Mr. H. LEWIS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 23rd February to the hon. Members for Middlesbrough West (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson) and Lambeth North (Mr. F. Briant).

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKISH REPARATION.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the outstanding claims on the part of British subjects to reparation from Turkey in respect of injuries sustained by them in the late War, it is proposed to substitute any, and what, provision in the Peace Treaty with that country for those under the Peace Treaties with Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria, rendering the private movable property of their nationals liable to expropriation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the provisions dealing with this matter in the Treaty of Sèvres, under Article 291 of which Turkish property in Allied territory may be charged with claims by Allied nationals in respect of their property in Turkey.

SYRIANS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Syrians were enrolled in the French army in the late War, and as such were under French protection; what was the political status of Syrians during the War; and whether it is now proposed to expropriate their private movable property in this country as Turkish subjects?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of the extent to which Syrians may have been enrolled in the French army. As Turkish subjects, their status during the War was that of enemies. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. Under the provisions of the Treaty of Sèvres the property of persons who show that they will acquire Syrian nationality under the nationality clauses of the Treaty of Sèvres is being released to them.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Sir E. CECIL: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the whole or any part of the £5,000,000 to be provided by Germany as compensation for suffering and damage by enemy action in the late War has yet been received; whether the Royal Commission appointed to make recommendations as to the distribution
of this sum has yet begun its work; and what steps are being taken to hasten a settlement of these claims?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given in reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Hexham Division (Major D. C. Brown) on the 14th February last.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if no compensation will be granted for enemy damage until the £5,000,000 has been received?

Sir R. HORNE: We have taken into consideration the anticipation of payments in the course of the next financial year.

WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Mr. DOYLE: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if he has abandoned all hope or intention of carrying out his oft-repeated intention of bringing the ex-Kaiser and the more highly placed war criminals of Germany and her Allies to trial; and if he will give the date (with the answer) when last the Allies made representation to the Dutch Government on the subject?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I have been asked to reply. With reference to the ex-Kaiser there is nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend on the 13th of last month, except to say that the date asked for is 24th March, 1920. To the Note sent on that date no reply was received. With reference to the other persons mentioned, the matter is one for the Supreme Council, who have lately received a report from the committee of lawyers referred to in more than one recent answer.

Mr. DOYLE: In view of the fact that this was a very important question at the last election and that a number of the supporters of the Government pledged themselves as candidates to secure the apprehension and trial of the arch criminal, cannot something be done before the next election comes?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members regard the carrying out of this pledge as vital to their chance of returning to this House?

Sir G. HEWART: The answer to the first question is, I hope so. The answer to the second is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

KIDNAPPINGS (BRITISH TROOPS).

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the total number of officers and men of the Army who were kidnapped by Sinn Fein in Ireland between 1st July, 1919, and the date of the truce, specifying those who were subsequently released and those who are presumed to have been murdered?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to answer this question. The numbers are seven officers and two other ranks, of whom one officer was subsequently released. The others are presumed to be dead.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (DISBANDMENT).

Mr. DONALD: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary the conditions of disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether the conditions of disbandment will prevent any man from enlisting in the new force or entering the employment of either Government?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The conditions of disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary provide that every man shall receive the pension corresponding to his actual service, with an addition to that service of 12 years, or 10 years if his pension be computed on a basis of fiftieths. This pension will be liable to suspension during the period of the pensioner's service in any other police force. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

LAND PURCHASE.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 33.
asked the Prime Minister what is the position of those whose interests are vitally affected by the question of land purchase in Ireland; whether this matter will be finally dealt with by the British Government or the Government of the Irish Free State; and if he is aware that the suspense and financial uncertainty of the present position is a source of great hardship to those interested?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the replies to questions on this subject which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) on the 9th February last and to the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) on the 16th February.

AUXILIARY POLICE (DEBTS).

Mr. HOGGE (in the absence of Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy): 10.
asked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the fact that debts incurred by members of A Company, Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, while stationed at Woodstock, County Kilkenny, with Messrs. James Bourke and Sons, amounting to £128 1s. 9d., have not yet been paid, in spite of the accounts having been rendered in due time in accordance with a circular issued by the officer in command; if he is aware that this circular clearly implied that accounts would be paid if rendered before a certain date and that the officer commanding would accept responsibility up to that date; and what action it is proposed to take now that the company has been disbanded, in view of the fact that the chief of police, Dublin Castle, to whom the matter has been referred, disclaims all responsibility, and will do no more than furnish the addresses of the individual debtors, not all of which are known?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If, as appears to be the case, these are private debts contracted by members of this company it is impossible for the Government to accept any responsibility in regard to them any more than they would in regard to private debts contracted by members of any other branch of His Majesty's Service. If, however, these are public debts, the question would be different. I am making inquiries in regard to the latter point.

POST OFFICE OFFICIALS (TRANSFER).

Mr. HAYDAY: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether the Postmaster-General of the Irish Administration has asked him to supply a list of Irishmen in the English service who are prepared to transfer their services to the Irish Post Office in the event
of a strike occurring, and whether, having regard to the separate Administration which has been created, he will give an assurance that no such transfer of staff will be arranged by his Department?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked by the Postmaster-General of the Provisional Government to ascertain what Irishmen serving in Great Britain desire transfer to the Post Office of Southern Ireland, and I have informed him that I cannot take any active steps pending the receipt of further particulars as to the vacancies to be filled and the terms of transfer, but that applications to be transferred will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make himself well acquainted with the whole of the conditions, and, if those conditions are such as I have mentioned in the question, will he decline to allow his Department to be used as an agency for supplying men in those circumstances?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HOME SERVICE (MEDAL).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Government regarding their reconsideration of the claims of Army and Air Service men who were prevented from going overseas to receive a Home service medal, in view of the fact that special constables who rendered much less arduous services are now receiving medals?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been asked to answer this question. I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce any decision on this subject.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how soon they will be able to come to a decision?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider legislation to provide that benefit payments made by friendly societies to their members shall not deprive those members of any proportion of their old age pensions to which they become entitled on reaching the age of 70 years, and shall not, as at present, penalise them for having endeavoured by their thrift to avoid becoming a burden upon the rates?

Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Consett Division of Durham (Mr. A. Williams) on the 13th ultimo.

GEORGIA.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the independence of Georgia has been recognised de facto by the British Government; whether the Georgian Government which obtained this recognition was overthrown by the military forces of the Russian Soviet Government; whether the late Government of Georgia has applied for admission to the International Conference of Genoa; whether this admission has been refused; and whether the British Government will endeavour to bring about a solution of the Georgian question at the Genoa Conference on the basis of the withdrawal of the Russian army of occupation and the freely expressed wishes of the Georgian people?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Georgian Republic was accorded de facto recognition in January, 1920; in March, 1921, Bolshevik Armenian and Russian troops invaded Georgia, which accepted the Soviet form of Government; all applications for admission to the Genoa Conference from persons purporting to represent the Georgian Republic have been refused, as it has been decided to limit representation at the Conference to European States. In reply to the last part of the question, I can only state that it has been the consistent policy of His Majesty's Government not to interfere in the internal politics of the Russian Border States.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not in the information of the Foreign Office that this
Georgian Government has been imposed upon Georgia entirely in contradiction to the overwhelming majority opinion?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I think my hon. Friend is correct in his statement.

ANGLO-FRENCH PACT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 37.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the allegations that he is prepared to pledge this country to defend the French frontier from Germany, whether he will ensure to this House the opportunity to discuss this question before any definite agreement is signed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already informed the House, in answer to a similar question, that Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing the terms of the Anglo-French Pact before any obligations are incurred in connection with it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Shall we have an opportunity at the same time to discuss a similar pact with Belgium?

Mr. MALONE: Shall we have that opportunity before the Prime Minister resigns?

WAR PAYMENTS TO FRANCE.

Colonel L. WARD: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum paid by this country to France from 1914 to 1920, inclusive, for railway services, dock and harbour dues, billeting, rent of houses, hotels, and public buildings, rent of trenches, compensation for damage and disturbance, in short, all services connected with the War?

Sir R. HORNE: A very rough calculation shows the amount in question to be approximately £32,000,000. It would not be possible to give exact figures under the various heads without a disproportionate amount of labour and expense. I ought, however, to point out that compensation was not paid in respect of trenches dug in forward areas in France.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

VALUATION OFFICE.

Mr. ATKEY: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials connected with the deceased Land Valuation Department are still retained in Govern-
ment service; what are they doing; and what is the amount represented by their salaries, offices, and all other incidental expenditure?

Sir R. HORNE: The Valuation Office has wide and important Exchequer functions both for Revenue and other Government purposes; these functions are detailed in Command Paper 918 of 1920. The number of officials now employed, including clerks, is 889, or less than one-fifth of the pre-War complement. The cost for the current year is £550,000, but there will be a substantial reduction in 1922–23.

Dr. MURRAY: Is this all that is left of the Land Campaign of 1910?

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the revised regrading scheme of the Scottish Board of Health provides for one establishment list for men and women; whether any other regrading scheme now with the Treasury abolishes separate establishment lists; and, if not, why has it not been possible to carry out the provisions of Clause 2 of the Resolutions passed by the House of Commons on 5th August, 1921, in English Departments as well as in a Scottish Department?

Mr. YOUNG: The regrading schemes laid before the Treasury, for the Scottish Board of Health as for other Departments, do not distinguish posts according to sex. On the general question of common establishment lists, I would refer to the reply which I am giving to-day to the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark.

STATIONERY OFFICE (MOTOR DRIVERS).

Mr. DOYLE: 80.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will give the number of male and female motor drivers at present employed by the Stationery Department; what are the rate of wages earned and hours worked in the various grades of such drivers; how many employés have been dispensed with during the past six months; and how many are under notice at the present moment?

Mr. YOUNG: As the statement is somewhat lengthy, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:


Number of Employés.
Grade.
Weekly wage.
Hours worked.


Male.
Female.






£
s.
d.



10
—
Heavy lorry drivers
…
3
16
0
48


1
—
Steam lorry driver
…
3
16
0
48


1
—
Steam lorry stoker
…
3
9
0
48


12*
—
Small motor driver-deliverymen
…
3
11
0
48


8
—
Motor tricar driver-messengers
…
3
1
0
48


Manchester.









1
—
Steam lorry driver
…
3
13
0
48


1
—
Steam lorry stoker
…
3
2
0
48


1
—
Motor driver-deliveryman
…
3
3
0
48


* Two of these drivers are employed on vans maintained by the Stationery Office on a repayment basis in the service of other Departments.


No employé has been discharged during the past six months and none is under notice at the present moment.

POST OFFICE (WOMEN).

Viscountess ASTOR: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the Postmaster-General's statement, on 20th February, that there was no woman in the Post Office who possessed the necessary qualifications for the Controllership of the Money Order Department, he can state what provision it is proposed to make to give the women the necessary training for such posts; and why, in view of the facts that 90 per cent. of the staff are women and that women have been employed in the Department for 25 years, no opportunities have hitherto occurred for them to qualify for higher posts?

Mr. YOUNG: This question was referred to the Postmaster - General's Department, and I fear that it did not arrive in time.

SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE, PORTOBELLO.

Mr. HOGGE: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in the months of May and July last the work of the surveyor of Customs and Excise was, notwithstanding two permitted absences from Portobello of seven days in May and five in July, performed in its entirety by weeks of continual overwork with complete satisfaction by Mr. R. G. Norton; and, in these circumstances, will the payment of £32 1s. 3d. withheld for such work be now paid?

Sir R. HORNE: The recognised conditions of service of Customs and Excise officials provide that their leave in the year in which they retire from the public service must be proportionate to the length of service given in that year, and that during short absences on leave, such as those referred to in the question, they cannot be provided with a substitute. Mr. Norton voluntarily retired from the service on the 31st August last in order to suit his own convenience. By that date he had exceeded the leave to which he was entitled by 16 days, and the Board of Customs and Excise, following the usual procedure, surcharged him in respect of the excess leave. I am not prepared to ask the Board to re-open this case.

Mr. HOGGE: This man did the work; why should he not have the money?

Sir R. HORNE: Mr. Norton took advantage of the position in which he found himself with bonus and salary to retire, and he must suffer the consequences of his own act.

COINAGE.

Mr. PERCY: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed shortly gradually to re-introduce the circulation of gold coinage?

Sir R. HORNE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a question on the 9th February asked by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). I should not care to prophesy
how soon the state of the exchanges will permit of a full restoration of the gold standard in this country, but in any case I hope that, when that time comes, the community will recognise both the superior convenience of paper money over gold coin and the desirability in the general interest of economising in the use of gold as currency.

Mr. GILBERT: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to withdraw the present silver coinage and to return to the pre-War standard of silver coinage, in view of the great reduction in the price of silver; and when it is possible for such a change to come into effect?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

RATES (GRETNA).

Major W. MURRAY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to give a decision shortly as regards the contributions in lieu of rates in respect of Government property at Gretna, which have been claimed by local authorities in Dumfriesshire; and whether he is aware that delay in this matter is retarding the sale of the Gretna property and factory?

Sir R. HORNE: Following on my letter to my hon. and gallant Friend of the 6th October last, negotiations have been taking place with the County Council on the various matters affecting them which arose in connection with Gretna. I understand the present position to be that the Disposal and Liquidation Commission are still awaiting a reply to a letter to the County Council of the 17th January last. While I extremely regret the delay in disposing of these questions, I am not aware that the sale of the property has been in any way prejudiced thereby.

WAR LOANS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that at the end of December, 1921, the 5 per cent. War Loan was quoted at 91½ and now it is about 96; that there is nearly £2,000,000,000 of this loan in
existence and that the rise in price represents an increase of value of £90,000,000; that some section of the community benefit by the rise in stock prices, whilst the community as a whole tends to lose in so far as it represents inflation and tends to a higher cost of living; and does he intend converting some of the floating indebtedness into a long-dated debt bearing a lower rate of interest?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the third, the hon. Member does not, I hope, begrudge to those who subscribed to War loans during the War the advantage which, after long patience and discouragement, the recent rise in the price of Government stocks has brought, especially as this rise has been accompanied by, and is, indeed, a sign of a certain amount of deflation, and a fall in the cost of living, just the opposite of what the hon. Member seems to suggest. I can assure the hon. Member that the question of converting the floating debt into long-term debt on terms satisfactory to the taxpayer has my constant attention, and no suitable opportunity of so doing will be neglected.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in consequence of the reduction in the cost of living, those who have invested money in days gone by will have a great advantage now?

Mr. SUGDEN: What about those who sold at 86?

Lieut-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the holders of these securities have lost far more by depreciation?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Major C. LOWTHER: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, or failed; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the Investigating Board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's third interim Report; and how many were recommended?

Mr. LEWIS: Eighty-one ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity in the Board of Education competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class. Of these, four passed, eight qualified, and 69 failed. Of those who failed, 62 applied for reconsideration, and 14 of these were recommended by the Board for reconsideration.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON SUGAR SUPPLIES.

Viscount EDNAM: 88.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many non-service men, and how many women, are employed in the Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies in a temporary capacity; and what steps he is taking to secure that the posts held by such personnel shall be filled by ex-service men who have been discharged from Government Departments and are now awaiting reallocation?

Mr. YOUNG: Fifteen non-service men and one woman are employed in a temporary capacity in the Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies. The present staff will be considerably reduced as from the 25th instant, and thereafter only a few officers with special qualifications and experience will be retained in order to complete the liquidation of the Commission's accounts.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 92.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in considering economies in the Government service, ex-service men will be kept on in preference to the 230 conscientious objectors now employed?

Mr. YOUNG: It would not be proper for me to anticipate the findings of the Select Committee on this matter.

ARAB RULERS (SUBSIDIES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the names of the Arab rulers in Asia to whom subsidies are paid out of British taxes; and what amounts are paid to each?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The position as regards the payment of subsidies to Arab rulers is as follows: The sum of £150,000 was provided in the Estimates for the current year to meet probable payments to the following rulers:

To the Sultan of Nejd (Ibn Saud) £5,000 a month and a lump sum payment of £20,000
£80,000


To the King of the Hedjaz (Hussein) £5,000 a month from 1st August, 1921, and a lump sum payment of £20,000
60,000


To other rulers
10,000


Total
£150,000

The Sultan of Nejd is the only one of these rulers to whom the full amount provided in the Estimates is actually being paid. As regards King Hussein, the conditions on which the monthly subsidy was to become payable have not yet been fulfilled, and consequently no payment has yet been made on this account. Certain advances have, however, been made to the King on account of the lump sum of £20,000. The sums so advanced amount in all to about £18,000. With regard to the other rulers mentioned above, no agreements have yet been concluded with these persons and consequently no subsidies have yet become payable. No other subsidies of any kind are being paid from British revenues to Arab rulers in Asia.

Mr. LAMBERT: What are these rulers doing for all these large sums of money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is rather a question of what they are not doing! As a matter of fact this sum of £150,000 is less than the cost of a single battalion of native infantry for the year. During the period this policy has been in force nearly 50 battalions have been withdrawn, with the consequent saving.

Mr. LAMBERT: Would it not then be better if we withdrew all the battalions and came away altogether?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend asks rather too much.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that the subvention paid to Ibn Saud is being used for the purpose of fighting the King of the Hedjaz, another ruler who is also paid a subvention to fight Ibn Saud?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am assured that the hostilities between these two potentates would be on a much more devastating scale were it not for the mollifying influence that the subventions exercise.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Are these subventions paid once only, or continuously, and will the payments go on indefinitely?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, I will present the proposals yearly to Parliament as long as I am responsible. The subventions are paid monthly—in arrear—and consequently we only pay for value received.

BRITISH FARINA MILLS (LAW COSTS).

Captain COOTE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the law costs of the defendants in the recent action of R. E. Pratt, Limited, versus the British Farina Mills, were borne by the Crown; and, if so, what is the amount of the charge falling on the taxpayer?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Captain COOTE: How is it that a bankrupt company in liquidation can afford the very heavy costs, and the engaging of expensive counsel?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The charges are paid by the liquidator.

Captain COOTE: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in the recent action of R. E. Pratt, Limited, versus the British Farina Mills, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £4,500 and costs, and that the defendants' solicitors have now stated that there is no chance of this sum or of the costs being paid; whether the Government, as debenture holders in the British Farina Mills, admit their liability under this judgment; and, if so, how they propose to discharge it?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the decision in this action, but I have no information as to the statement referred to. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; the third part does not, therefore, arise.

GREECE (LOANS).

Mr. DOYLE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the attempt to float a Greek loan of £15,000,000 in London is greatly resented by Moslems alike in the Near and Far East, and is taken to indicate sympathy with the Greek Government in its crusade against Turkey and Mahommedanism; and will he reconsider the policy of this loan?

Sir R. HORNE: In accordance with the general policy of His Majesty's Government not to intervene in the matter of issues of loans in the London market, it is open either to Greece or to Turkey (including the Angora Government) to raise loans in London if the market is willing to lend, and no question of the political sympathies of His Majesty's Government arises.

Mr. DOYLE: May I have an answer to the latter part of the question?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask my right hon. Friend a supplementary question? In this question to-day, the statement is made that to indicate sympathy with the Greek Government is crusading against the Turks and the Mahommedans. Is it not the fact that the Greek Government has placed itself entirely in the hands of the British Government as a mediator for the purpose of bringing to an end the struggle between themselves and the Turkish forces?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that does not arise on a question relating to a financial loan.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not one that should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. O'CONNOR: But, Mr. Speaker, may I—

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question down.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes, I will put it down; but may I explain that I only intervened for the purpose of challenging what I thought was an entire misrepresentation of the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. DOYLE: I see the Attorney-General present. May I have an answer from him. [HON. MEMBEUS: "Order, order!"]

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (WELFARE).

Mr. SUGDEN: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will circularise all industrial manufacturers giving details of the expert literature issued by his office bearing upon welfare supervision in factories and workshops, first-aid and ambulance at factories and workshops, mess rooms and canteens at small factories, ventilation of factories and workshops, Reports of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, lighting in factories and workshops, protective clothing for women and girl workers, and women and children in industry, and issue instructions to his inspectors that they require all welfare workers in such workshops to peruse and consider such publications, and by examination and test afterwards apply such methods as are essential for the health of employés?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): A printed list of Home Office publications on factory questions is issued to every new occupier of a factory or workshop. It is also supplied to any occupier on application, and has a wide distribution. Further, the publications themselves are widely distributed among the employers' and workers' associations concerned and to the Press, and the inspectors take every opportunity at their inspections to bring them to the notice of the individual firms. I will consider, however, whether any further steps can be taken to extend their circulation. There is no power under the Acts to require welfare workers employed in factories to read these publications, but I have no doubt that they are largely read and acted on by these workers, many of whom are rendering zealous and valuable service.

POLICE (PAY).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 71.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the police force in rural districts draw the same scale of pay as in the Metropolitan area, where the cost of living is much higher, he will take steps to have a similar differentiation made to what there is in other branches of the public service?

Mr. SHORTT: The recommendation of the Geddes Committee is under considera-
tion, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present. As to the grounds for the adoption of uniform scales of pay for the lower ranks in all forces, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to paragraphs 19–23 of the Report of the Desborough Committee.

CARMARTHEN PRISON.

Mr. HINDS: 78.
asked the Home Secretary the amount of savings that it is estimated the closing of Carmarthen Prison will effect; how it is proposed to deal with remand cases, and, if this prison is closed, how is it proposed to deal with prisoners from West Wales; and whether he will consult with the chief magistrates and the police in the counties of Carmarthen, Cardigan, and Pembroke before arriving at a final decision?

Mr. SHORTT: It is anticipated that the net saving will be £2,525 a year. Remand and other prisoners from West Wales will go to Swansea Prison, except where there are suitable police cells which can be used for remand purposes. A few cells will also be kept ready in Carmarthen Prison for use, if necessary, during a trial. The female wing of Carmarthen Prison was closed some years ago, and no difficulty has been experienced, and, in view of the imperative need for economy, I see no reason for altering the decision.

FISH IMPORT DUTIES (FRANCE).

Mr. HOGGE (in the absence of Major Entwistle): 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the import duty on British fish entering France has been or is about to be increased from 20 francs to 55 francs per 100 kilos and that the result will be the closing of the French markets to the British fishing industry, with consequent unemployment in the same; and what steps the Government has taken or propose to take to protect the fishing industry in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): This question will be answered by the Minister of Agriculture. As the replies have not yet come from France,
the hon. and gallant Gentleman in whose name the question stands has been asked to postpone it.

ARMENIANS.

Mr. MILLS: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British representatives at the forthcoming conference on Near Eastern problems will be instructed to carry out the pledge of the Allies, endorsed by the Assembly of the League of Nations, that a national home for the Armenians, entirely independent of Turkish rule, shall be established in the territory in North-East Asia Minor, known as Turkish Armenia?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member doubtless refers to the Allied proposal of March last, which contemplated the allocation to the existing Armenian state of territory on the Eastern frontiers of Turkey as a national home for Turkish Armenians. The feasibility of this proposal will be discussed at the forthcoming Allied Conference, when the best means of satisfying legitimate Armenian aspirations will be carefully considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Prime Minister consent to receive a deputation from the Labour party on this question in order that we may try to get justice done to the Armenians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate directly with the Prime Minister. I cannot speak in his name on this subject.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of refugees from Turkish Armenia are now in the Caucasus waiting to get back to their land as soon as the Turks have left?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of an early discussion of the policy of the Government in regard to this question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot hold out any hope of affording special facilities for a discussion.

CANCER.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase in mortality from cancer, and the urgent necessity for investigating the
origin of this disease, and the best form of treatment, he will consider the advisability of the appointment of a Royal Commission on this question?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have been asked to reply. I am advised that a Royal Commission would not be a suitable body to undertake an investigation of this kind. Extensive research into the cause and treatment of the disease has for some time past been undertaken by various competent medical bodies in this and other countries.

SUNDAY CONFERENCES.

Mr. HOGGE (in the absence of Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy): 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to reduce Sunday labour to a minimum and in the interests of the observance of Sunday, he is prepared to use his influence to avoid the holding of Cabinet conferences, negotiations with non-Governmental persons or with foreign representatives, and similar work and meetings on Sundays, however necessary these may have been during the period of the War?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Peace Conference had no Sunday sittings—neither had the Cannes Conference—and Cabinet conferences are not held on Sunday except in case of urgent public necessity. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that no one welcomes more gladly than my colleagues and I an opportunity for one day of comparative rest in the week.

ALLOTMENT HOLDERS (SCOTLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 40.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now state whether a separate Bill relating to allotment holders will be introduced for Scotland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. As I stated on Tuesday last, the matter is under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the allotment holders are unanimous in their desire to have a settlement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better make his representations on the subject to the Secretary for Scotland, who, I am sure, will give them all the attention which they deserve.

WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (SAVINGS).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the approximate saving in the Estimates for the forthcoming Financial Year to be effected in consequence of the decisions of the Washington Conference?

Sir R. HORNE: Approximately £10,000,000.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. HOGGE (in the absence of Mr. T. Thomson): 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that some of the economies proposed by the Committee on National Expenditure are in the nature of a transfer of charge from the National Exchequer to the local rates; and whether he will supply an estimate of the amount by which the local rates will be increased if such proposals were adopted?

Mr. SPEAKER: May I ask the hon. Member if he has had the personal request of the hon. Member in whose name the question stands to ask the question on his behalf?

Mr. HOGGE: It is a standing arrangement of Members with Whips of all parties to ask questions on their behalf when the Members who have put down the questions are not present.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is just what I was afraid of. This is against the Rules.

Mr. HOGGE: We have arranged among ourselves in our own party that, in the absence of Members, the Whips who are present should ask questions on their behalf, and we have therefore got the general permission of all Members of our party to ask questions for them when the Members are absent.

Mr. SPEAKER: If I were to allow that in the case of one party, it would apply to all parties in the House, and would
defeat the purpose for which the Rules were made. There must be a special request applicable to the particular question, and not merely a general request.

Mr. HOGGE: On the point of Order. You will, I daresay, have noticed that most of those are occasions when the Whips have to give it into their hands. It very seldom happens that we have, as we have to-day, an extra 10 minutes in which to proceed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The purpose of the Rule is to be fair to Members all round the House. If an hon. Member is likely to be absent, he can ask some other Member to ask his question on his behalf, but I cannot give my approval to a standing arrangement such as is indicated by the hon. Member.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does that mean that when a question comes round for the second time, it is absolutely necessary that the Member who puts the question must be asked to do so by the Member in whose name it stands? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes—why not?"]

Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member may send word to another hon. Member, if he likes, asking him to put a question on his behalf, but I must insist on that request being made particularly for that day, and in respect of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What business is it either of the House or of anybody else what arrangements are made between the Member who puts down a question on the Paper and the person to whom he gives a standing order to ask his questions for him when he is not himself present? How does that concern the rest of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: It concerns the rest of the House very much, because if I allowed one particular group of Members to make an arrangement of that kind, it would give them a great advantage over others.

After the second call of Questions—

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that some of the economies proposed by the Committee on National Expenditure are in the nature of a transfer of charge from the National Exchequer to the local rates; and whether he will supply
an estimate of the amount by which the local rates will be increased if such proposals were adopted?

Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend received any notice of this question. Is it on the Paper?

Mr. HOGGE: Yes. It is number 64. We have up to a quarter to four o'clock to receive answers to questions from the Minister. The Minister is in the House with the answer, and I have put the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to put the question, but whether there is an answer or not I cannot say.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I have a ruling from you, Sir, for the guidance of Ministers? My colleagues and myself desire to treat the House with respect, but, above all, we want to conform to the spirit of your ruling. The hon. Member a moment ago was informed by you that you could not allow him, under, so to speak, a general brief from his party, to put the questions of all the hon. Gentlemen who were not ready in their places to ask them themselves. The hon. Member, now that Question Time is over, except for Private Notice questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—now that you have twice gone through the Paper, and exhausted the usual opportunities, proposes to put as a separate question a question which is on the Paper, and which you have not allowed him to put. I ask for your guidance as to whether, in these circumstances, the Minister should now answer a question which a short time ago you said ought not to be put. If you rule that he should, my right hon. Friend will, of course, read the answer, but I should have thought that it was not permissible to read, as if it were a Private Notice question, a question which you have just ruled should not be put.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that, when hon. Members are not in their places to ask questions on the first call, and they are called for the second time, it is purely a matter of courtesy on the part of the Minister to answer. No obligation rests upon the Minister to be present if the hon. Member in whose name the question stands was absent when it was first called; and it is obvious that that applies with even greater strength when, at the third opportunity, an hon. Member rises
and asks the question. It is a pure matter of grace and courtesy on the part of the Minister should he be pleased to give an answer to a question put in that way.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On that point of Order. I and my colleagues are only anxious to conform to your ruling, and to act with all due respect and courtesy to the House. The point, however, is this: You have ruled that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was not entitled, a little time ago, to put, on behalf of an absent hon. Friend, a question appearing on the Paper which his absent hon. Friend had not specifically requested him to ask upon this day. The hon. Member thereupon reads the question from the Notice Paper, and puts it as his own. It seemed to me that that was to evade your ruling, if not, indeed, positively to break it. If you think it right that my right hon. Friend should give the answer which he has prepared, and which would have been given had the hon. Gentleman in whose name the question stands been present himself at the right time, or requested some other hon. Member to put the question in his name, my right hon. Friend will do so; but it appeared to me that if he had given the answer it would have been in defiance of your ruling.

Mr. HOGGE: On that point of Order. May I, before you give your decision, point out that the last thing of which the Opposition would ever be guilty would be discourtesy to the Chair? May I also point out that usually there are many more questions on the Paper than fill up the hour to which we are entitled, and that the only reason why some of us have been asking these questions to-day was the obvious fact that, the 96 questions on the Paper having been got through, owing to the absence of both Members and Ministers—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. HOGGE: The Attorney-General was absent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He was hero the second time.

Mr. HOGGE: There was plenty of time for the whole of the questions to be answered, and, that being so, are we not entitled to use our discretion?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be very unfortunate if the observance of businesslike speed were to have the result suggested by the hon. Member, and, personally, I should not give any encouragement to that. As I have already said, the answering of questions on the second call is purely a matter of courtesy on the part of the Minister. No obligation rests upon him. With regard to what has already occurred, namely, the reading of a question from the Notice Paper, after the second call, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was technically within his right according to the Rules of the House, but it is really in the interest of Members generally, and more in accord with the spirit of the Rules, that replies should not be given in such circumstances.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (INDIAN ARMY).

Major D. C. BROWN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with his statement yesterday in regard to the Geddes Committee's Army figures, whether he can state how far there had been a change of mind on the part of the Indian Government as to their necessities in the shape of British troops?

Sir R. HORNE: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for affording me an opportunity to correct the statement which I made yesterday on this matter. It is not accurate to say that there had been any change of mind on the part of the Government of India. What I find to have happened is this: At the time the Geddes Committee sat, the post-War establishment of the Army in India had not been decided. I gather that the War Office anticipated that 7,000 men might be found surplus to normal requirements in India, and so informed the Geddes Committee, but it has not been found possible to realise this anticipation in present circumstances.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. WALSH: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will indicate the course of business for next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We propose to take the remaining stages of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill on Monday and Tuesday;

On Wednesday, the Supplementary Estimate for Middle Eastern Services;

On Thursday, the Supplementary Estimate for Miscellaneous War Services;

On Friday the Supplementary Estimate for the Army.

There will be other minor Estimates, but I have named in each case the Estimate which we propose to put first on the Paper. There will be other minor Estimates, and Report stages.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN,

HUGH HAYES, Esq., for the County of Down (West Down Division).

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Pawnbrokers Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Major Barnes, Sir Edmund Bartley-Denniss, Captain Sir Hamilton Benn, Sir John Bethell, Sir William Bird, Mr. Broad, Mr. Bromfield, Lieut.-Colonel Buchanan. Mr. Cairns, Lieut. Colonel Campion, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Sir Robert Clough, Major Colfox, Major Cope, Lieut.-Colonel Courthope, Mr. D. M. Cowan, Mr. Alfred Davies, Sir William Edge, Viscount Ednam, Mr. Evans, Mr. James Gardiner, Mr.
Grundy, Mr. Halls, Mr. Haslam, Mr. Hirst, Sir Harry Hope, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Jephcott, Sir Evan Jones, Mr. Jodrell, Mr. Kiley, Mr. Lawson, Mr. T. A. Lewis, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Dr. Murray, Mr. John Murray, Mr. Naylor, Sir Robert Newman, Sir Edward Nicholl, Lieut.-Colonel Parry, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Rodger, Mr. Simm, Mrs. Wadding-ton, Sir Joseph Walton, Mr. Charles Williams, Viscount Windsor, Mrs. Wintringham, Mr. Wise, and Major Mackenzie Wood.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Pawbrokers Bill): Mr. Atkey, Mr. Britton, Mr. John Davison, Mr. Gange, Mr. John Guest, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. G. W. H. Jones, Mr. Lorden, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, and Sir Alfred Yeo.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:—"That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection."

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Madras Railway Annuities Act, 1908." [Madras Railway Annuities Bill [Lords.]

MADRAS RAILWAY ANNUITIES BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1,—Provisions for giving the force of law to and carrying into effect Irish Agreement.

(1) The Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the Schedule to this Act shall have the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Act.

(2) For the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of the said Agreement, Orders in Council may be made transferring to the Provisional Government established under that Article the powers and machinery therein referred to, and as soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall be dissolved and such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding, in accordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise number of members and method of election and holding of elections to that Parliament, an election of members for the constituencies which would have been entitled to elect members to that Parliament, and the members so elected shall constitute the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government shall be responsible, and that Parliament shall, as respects matters within the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government, have power to make laws in like manner as the Parliament of the Irish Free State when constituted.

(3) No writ shall be issued after the passing of this Act for the election of a member to serve in the Commons House of Parliament for a constituency in Ireland other than a constituency in Northern Ireland.

Viscount WOLMER: had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1).

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper is not in order because it would reverse the decision come to on the Second Reading.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "for a Treaty."
The object of the Amendment is to raise the whole status of the Agreement which has been made between representatives of the Government and representatives of Ireland. It is called a Treaty. That word seems to be quite unnecessarily inserted in the Bill. What has been come
to is an agreement. Under the Constitution a Treaty can only be made between high contracting Powers and independent States, and it is not possible constitutionally for Ministers of the Crown or the Crown itself to make a Treaty with subjects of the Crown. If Ministers maintain that the word "Treaty" is properly inserted at this point they then, by their action and by the phraseology of the Bill, admit that the State which we are setting up in Ireland is a Sovereign Independent State competent to make treaties, and they further admit that at the time the Agreement was come to the Irish representatives had established independence and sovereignty to be in a position to negotiate a Treaty. There have been many previous Acts which have arisen out of Treaties. They always begin by reciting the high contracting Powers who have made the Treaty. I remember one, the Behring Sea Fisheries Act, which recites that a Treaty having been come to between Her Majesty the Queen, who was then the reigning Sovereign, the President of the United States, the Emperor of Russia, and the Emperor of Japan, all competent high contracting Powers of sovereign independent States, and it goes on to recite "these enactments are therefore made." But nothing of the kind is done in this Bill. It is therefore in a new and wrong form, and docs not conform with our constitutional practice. If we are to proceed in a manner entirely unconstitutional, contrary to law, and contrary to the practice of the Constitution, we are taking a revolutionary step, and it is for the Government to say why it is necessary on this occasion to establish a new precedent and to set aside everything which has hitherto been done according to constitutional practice.
I do not want to labour the question, but we want explanation and enlightenment as to the views of His Majesty's Ministers, and in the course of their statement it will help the Committee and help the country at large if they explain what authority the gentlemen who signed the Agreement had. Were they representatives of a high contracting Power? Were they representatives of a properly constituted Parliament, with a Government responsible to that Parliament, or were they merely delegates coming over on their own account, subject to agreement or disagreement at a general meeting which was
held in Ireland lately? Then we come to the question as to what authority they have to ratify any Treaty. Was it representative of the Irish State which is being set up? It certainly was not a constitutional Parliament. The Act of 1920, which has not yet been set aside, enacts that there shall be elections held in a regular manner provided for according to law and that the elected representatives of the various constituencies should take a certain oath of allegiance or they were not properly constituted members of that Assembly. That was not done in the case of Dail Eireann. It is notorious. They never took the prescribed oath. It was never constituted according to Statute. It is for the Government to explain how that assembly can be recognised as properly representative of the people of Southern Ireland. These are high constitutional matters on which we may fairly claim a full and candid explanation, which I am sure the Government is willing to give.

4.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: On a point of Order. May I ask for a ruling as to how this Amendment is in order? I do not wish to impede it; I only ask for guidance as to further Amendments. The title at the head of the Schedule is "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty," and that fact appears to me to constitute a case for its being definitely scheduled to the Bill, and therefore, I submit, it is incapable of alteration.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely, if these words came out, it would not affect the Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord has anticipated my ruling. I should not rule that the words at the head of the Schedule, "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty," were part of the Schedule.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): This Amendment is verbal in its character in this part of the Bill, and it would not affect the actual substance. In form, it would be very clumsy, because, as has already been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend below the gangway (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), we should not be reproducing in the text of the Bill the actual title which the Agreement in
the Schedule bears. Therefore, the Government will resist it. There is, in my view, however, a very strong argument in favour of inserting and even of dwelling on these words. This expression, "the Treaty," has become the foundation of the position of the political party in Ireland which is considering the Republic and which is seeking to establish the Irish Free State. When men have been dealing with difficult questions arising in this and that way out of the settlement, the common solvent of them all has been the Treaty. "We stand on the Treaty." "We must stick to the Treaty." That is our position, and that also is the position of the co-signatories to the Treaty on the other side of the Channel. The use of this word has a great sentimental advantage, and will aid us, the more it is used and the more it is dwelt on, to arrive at that satisfactory result which it is the hope of our legislation and of our policy to achieve. When you come to choose what words you will use, and when your actual position is not affected thereby, you should surely use the words most likely to help you to secure the goodwill, support, and agreement which you seek.
I have an experience which covers another case of a similar character. I remember well that when the Boer War came to an end the Boers made terms with Lord Kitchener and the British Authorities—Lord Milner—at Vereeniging, and for a long time afterwards there was a difference in official circles as to how that agreement, concluded at Vereeniging, should be styled. The pedants and those who wished to rub it in wished to describe the Vereeniging pact as the Terms of Surrender, and rigorously to insert it in the whole series of official documents, whereas those working for the reconciliation of South Africa always referred to it as the Treaty of Vereeniging, and as the Treaty of Vereeniging it stands to-day. It was on the basis of the Treaty of Vereeniging that General Smuts and General Botha came to our aid and maintained the Imperial authority in South Africa during the course of the late great War. This is one of the occasions when one should go out of one's way to employ a term like this when you are seeking, without concessions, without additional concessions in substance, to invest your legislation and action with the greatest amount of acceptability in
the eyes of those with whom you are trying to effect a friendly reconciliation, and I earnestly hope that not only will the House decline to remove these words from the Bill, but that if, by any chance, we had omitted to put them in they would by an overwhelming majority have insisted on their insertion.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I listened to my right hon. Friend's explanation with great interest. This Amendment has the advantage of eliciting from the Government what is really their theory of solving the Irish question. It is quite apparent that the Government think that the more difficult the situation the more remote your declarations ought to be from the truth. My right hon. Friend laid it down that you should be as conciliatory as possible, quite irrespective of whether you are really conveying the true meaning or not. I am afraid that is an unsound method of solving the Irish question

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not what I said; it is what you are putting in my mouth.

Lord H. CECIL: Yes, I know, because I am obliged to address myself to the ordinary canons of a rational understanding. My right hon. Friend says that he has had experience of the South African settlement. I thought that he was going to refer to that experience in connection with South Africa when his party used what he termed a "terminological inexactitude," because this is precisely that; it is a terminological inexactitude. It is a misdescription. Do you really mean to treat with the persons with whom you are negotiating as independent powers, or do you not? My right hon. Friend's defence really amounted to this. "We do not regard them as independent, but we earnestly wish that in Ireland it should be thought that we do. We propose to use language which will convey to the Irish people that we are treating Ireland as an independent power, though, as a matter of fact, we do not so regard it." I believe that is all quite unsound. I do not believe that it is true to the Irish character or to human nature at all. I believe that if you want to come to an understanding with people you should be scrupulously frank and candid. Like all human beings, they are quite capable of
respecting frank and honest dealing. If you say: "You are not independent, but we are prepared to come to an agreement with you about the points in dispute," that is an intelligible position, but if you indulge in all this camouflage and speak of a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland which is quite unreal, you only bring yourselves into contempt, and you will only be driven hither and thither, because deceit is the natural weapon of weakness. I do not believe in this language. It does not represent what you really intend to say, and to found your fabric on what is untrue and false is bad statesmanship as well as bad morals.

Sir F. BANBURY: My Noble Friend has put the situation in a nutshell. Of course, the real fact is that the Government are desirous of conveying to Ireland that, in their opinion, they are an independent country with which we can make a Treaty, whereas they want to tell the House of Commons and England that it is not an independent country and that they do not intend to recognize their authority. That is the simple fact. The Colonial Secretary commenced by saying that these words were only form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Verbal!"] Of course, they are verbal. Then he went on to say that it was necessary to do this because you must conciliate, I do not know whether he said your enemies or your friends, but no doubt it is the policy of the Government to "desert your friends so long as you can conciliate your enemies." That is a mistaken policy. These words, if they mean anything, mean that we are making a Treaty. With whom can we make a Treaty? Only with an independent State. Nobody has ever heard of a Treaty being made, shall I say, with Scotland since it became part of the United Kingdom. We cannot make a Treaty with New Zealand. Should we make a Treaty with Canada? We should make an agreement. We should make an agreement with Australia, and with any of our various colonies over which we happen, at the moment, to retain some vestige of authority. We should not make a Treaty with them. Inevitably, you are going to encourage those Irishmen who are desirous of separating from this country and becoming a Republic. What we want is to make them understand—I am not, for the moment, saying that we ought to go back on what we
have done, though we have gone too far, and we do not want to go any further—that they are not an independent nation and that they cannot have a Republic. That is why I shall support this Amendment.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The Colonial Secretary in his speech used great violence in order to show that he did not understand the point. What were his reasons for resisting this Amendment? In the first instance, he said it was a verbal Amendment? It is not a verbal Amendment, but, if it were, what was the necessity for his extravagant violence about it? His next point was that it was a matter of sentiment. We have had a good deal too much loose, ill-directed, and foolish sentiment in dealing with Ireland. For God's sake, let us have no more of it. Let us come to realities. If we do, the Irish people will respect us more, especially the better class of the Irish people, and the British people will have a good deal more confidence in our wisdom than if we go on with this pretence and false sentiment. The Colonial Secretary's third point on which he became most eloquent was the Boer Treaty. Of course, it was a Treaty made with the Boers. The Boers were not our subjects. They were engaged in a war with us.

Mr. CHURCHILL: At the time they made the Treaty of Vereeniging they had already been for nearly two years formally annexed to the British Empire.

Sir J. BUTCHER: They were not our subjects. Therefore, it was perfectly correct, constitutionally and otherwise, to describe that as the Vereeniging Treaty. If that is the only analogy, the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us it is a weak one. This document, for which we are asked to give legal authority, is simply and solely an agreement between His Majesty's Government and certain Irishmen who came over here as delegates, though it was not very clear exactly what delegate authority they had, as subsequent events have shown. To call it a Treaty is a gross abuse of language. It is a pure falsehood. Who makes a Treaty? His Majesty the King makes a Treaty and he makes it with the sovereign representative of a foreign Power. There is no other Treaty known to the constitution; there is no other form of agreement that
I know of between the King or Government of this country and the representative of a foreign Government. In that case, such an agreement is properly described as a Treaty. I am glad to see the Attorney-General present. We all respect and recognise his grasp of constitutional law, and his great fairness in dealing with these questions. Will he give us any precedent other than the present one for describing an arrangement between the Government and certain of His Majesty's subjects as a Treaty? Is there any such precedent in existence? If there is we shall be very glad to know of it, and it might have some effect on our Votes. The truth of the matter is this, that this Agreement was described as a Treaty, I do not say with the object of deceiving the Irishmen, but certainly it has had the effect of deceiving the Irishmen. When a certain section of the Irish people saw the word "Treaty," they said: "This is de factorecognition of the existing Irish Republic." It is for that reason, and that reason only, that the Irishmen welcomed the word "Treaty," and the sooner we as honest people disabuse them of the idea that they were a Republic, that they are a Republic, or that they are going to be a Republic, the better it will be for the good faith and honesty of this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Far be it from bystanders like the Labour party to interfere in the domestic differences of the two interesting parties who are at present engaged in denouncing each other. The man who interferes between husband and wife is likely to get into trouble.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no connection between the hon. Member's remarks and the question as to whether the words "for a Treaty" shall stand part of the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am coming to the point. The question is whether a Treaty has been signed or not. (Interruption.)

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) not to interrupt the proceedings.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: And may I respectfully ask you, Mr. Chairman, to direct your remarks to the other side of the Committee also?

The CHAIRMAN: If the occasion arises I shall call hon. Members on either side of the Committee to order. I hope the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) will keep to the question under discussion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot see where I have been out of order in my speech so far, and why it is necessary for hon. Members to introduce this somewhat acrimonious atmosphere. I was trying to point out that, while the various supporters of His Majesty's Government are trying to make up their minds as to whether this is or is not a Treaty, we on this side of the House are quite satisfied with the words as they stand in the Bill. In spite of all that we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), we are convinced that it is a Treaty that has been signed, and that it is as well that we should have the facts stated in this Act of Parliament. A Treaty has been made between this country and the Irish Republic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, and it is useless for His Majesty's Government to try to evade the issue by saying that the words are merely formal. They cannot deal with this Bill or this Amendment without draining dregs of humiliation, that after having practised black and tannery for two years—

The CHAIRMAN: This is quite out of order. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to keep to the point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I not, in order, in discussing this Amendment, to ask whether this Treaty was not the result of two years of direct action?

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite impossible for the hon. Member to proceed on those lines.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies was completely out of order in bringing forward the analogy of South Africa.

The CHAIRMAN: He would have been if he had alluded to the methods by which the War was conducted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The analogy of South Africa did not refer to concentration camps, but it referred to the actual warfare that took place. It referred to the fact that there, as in Ireland, we had a war, and there, as in Ireland, we
had to close that war down by a Treaty. I approve of the word Treaty in this Bill, because it does register the facts of the case, and whether it appeals to Irish sentiment or not, it is just as well that the people of this country should realise that they are not in this Bill making a gift to the people of Ireland, but fulfilling their part of a bargain between two free peoples.

Mr. INSKIP: I cannot imagine why a discussion of this sort should be conducted with the heat that the hon. and gallant Member has imported into it. Different views can be quite easily taken as between two different parties as to the correct use of language. If anyone will look, though I have not had an opportunity of looking, at any dictionary of the English language, I believe they will find that the use of the word "Treaty" in its primary sense is perfectly consistent with the use of the word "Treaty" as applied to this Agreement, and that the use of the word "Treaty" as being descriptive of an agreement between sovereign States is a secondary and developed use of the word. So much for the question as to the correct use of language. From another point of view it might very well be called a Treaty. It was a matter of grave discussion amongst some of us as to whether the Government ought not at an earlier stage to have recognised as belligerents the people who were carrying on guerilla warfare in Ireland. It is often a nice question as to which belligerents or sovereignty should be recognised. None of us desired to recognise the sovereignty of Ireland, but there was a real necessity at one time to recognise those engaged in the guerilla warfare as belligerents, who would have been subject to the ordinary laws and customs of war. As between persons who have been recognised as belligerents and a sovereign government it would not have been a misuse of the language to describe the agreement as a Treaty, even in the ordinary sense in which rebels who have attained a certain status may be free to make a Treaty with the sovereign against whom they have rebelled. But whether it is a misuse of the English language or not to describe this agreement as a Treaty, I cannot find any real objection to the insertion of the word "Treaty" in the Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: This is not a mere verbal matter, as was suggested by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is a matter of high constitutional importance. If this Bill receives His Majesty's assent it will be communicated by the King's Most Excellent Majesty. I should like to ask the Attorney-General the simple question whether it is competent or possible for His Majesty to enter into a Treaty with his own subjects. We have discussed from time to time agreements with large and important sections of His Majesty's subjects. A short time ago we had a prolonged discussion on a very important agreement entered into with the coal miners and coal owners. Would it have been competent to describe that as a Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] You may call a kettle a candlestick, but it does not make it a candlestick. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) asked whether it would have been competent for us to make a Treaty with Canada, New Zealand, or Australia, but this is a very much larger question, because the people of Ireland have never had colonial or dominion rights recognised before this agreement.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): It is more pleasant to listen to speeches than to make them, and I was hoping to remain silent this afternoon. But several hon. Members have asked me, in a somewhat pointed manner, for an expression of opinion upon this question. I will express an opinion, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I express it in the shortest and simplest form. In my opinion this is not an occasion for constitutional pedantry. This Agreement, which is the Schedule to the Bill, is spoken of as "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty." I do not propose to be drawn into giving a general answer to hypothetical questions, but I will give an answer with regard to this Bill. The use of the word "Treaty" as applied to these Articles does not add any ingredients to those Articles which they do not otherwise contain, Und there is nothing in the smallest degree improper, if my opinion is asked, in the description which that Agreement has received. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind one further fact. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, in reply to the Mover of this Amendment a little time
ago, dwelt, and, if I may say so, quite naturally upon the sentimental value of this word in this connection. But it has also a certain historical interest, because if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will carry their minds back to the Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, of the 2nd July, 1800, they will remember that that which was then done was spoken of—I admit the circumstances were not the same—as a Treaty of Union. If my opinion is asked as a Law Officer of the Crown, I think there is nothing inconsistent between the nature of this document and the use of this word.

Colonel NEWMAN: I do not suppose the Attorney-General recognises, and I doubt if the Committee recognise, what they are doing this afternoon on the advice of the Colonial Secretary. On Sunday next a great demonstration is to be held in O'Connell Street, Dublin, and it is going to be addressed by the President of the Irish Republic and by Mr. Michael Collins, the Chief Minister of his Cabinet. What we do to-day and to-morrow is to give that meeting a good send-off. We have to insure the success of the speeches of Mr. Griffith and Mr. Michael Collins and anything we say upholding them will be good but if it be against them it will be bad. That really is the position at the moment. As the Colonial Secretary has said this is electioneering. The object is to give an advantage to the Provisional Government, nothing more and nothing less. The Colonial Secretary talked about South Africa and the Vereeniging Treaty. In that case the Boers did surrender to us. Have we surrendered to the Irish in the late war? If hon. Members read a good deal of what I read in the Irish papers they will come to the conclusion we have. Yesterday, or the day before, the barracks at Athlone were taken over by the Irish Republican Army and the Commandant of that force at once talked about surrender. In answering a toast he used that word several times. If we have surrendered to them we are making a Treaty. If we have not been beaten then I submit we cannot make a Treaty with those who are still subjects of the King and of this Empire. I suggest that these words ought to come out.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the answer of the Attorney-General, and, if
he will give me his attention for a few moments I shall be glad, for I am anxious to pay him a compliment. There is no Member of the Government for whom I have a greater admiration, but my admiration every time I have heard him speak lately has been slowly ebbing away. I wish to put a stop to that. I had to comment the other day on the fact that he had spoken for a quarter of an hour without giving the House the explanation asked for. To-day one of my hon. and learned Friends put a pointed question to him, and he got up at that Box. He did not speak for a quarter of an hour—I wish he had done so—but in his short speech he was careful to give no answer to the question asked of him, i.e.,whether it was competent to use the word "treaty" in the connection in which it is used here. He told us with very great solemnity that, in his opinion, there was nothing in the use of the word "treaty" inconsistent with this Bill. That is quite a different point. We never asked him that.

Sir G. HEWART: What I said was that the use of the word in this connection was not inconsistent with the Agreement.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Yes, there is nothing in the use of the word in this connection which is inconsistent with the Bill now before us. That, I repeat, is not the question which we put to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend immediately behind me (Mr. Inskip) told this House that the use of the word "treaty" was not out of accord with the dictionary definition. I have no doubt he is quite right, but, again, that is not the point we raise. The question is not whether the word is rightly used in a dictionary sense, but whether it is properly used in a constitutional sense. That is an entirely different and very important point. When one Member of the Government tells us it is a mere verbal matter, and another tells us that it is not inconsistent to use the word in the Bill, they are both evading what is really the important point. The Colonial Secretary referred to the South African precedent, and said the word was used in connection with the Vereeniging Treaty. But there is another South African incident which I think has been mentioned by the Noble Lord the
Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), to which I should like to again call the attention of the Committee. What is really being done is that this word is being used deliberately because it has an ambiguous meaning. It is intended to convey one thing to Ireland and another thing here. That is exactly what happened in connection with South Africa—I refer to the incident in which peace was made after Majuba. On that occasion this country introduced the word "suzerainty," and I remember it being pointed out at the time by a distinguished statesman in this country that it was used in exactly the same way as we are using the word "treaty" here, in order that this country might believe we were retaining the suzerainty, whereas in South Africa people might believe we were retaining nothing. It was largely the ambiguity of this phrase on which the South African War later on arose I hope that no such terrible consequences will follow here, but that is no reason why we should not adhere to sound constitutional usage.
I think it an extraordinary thing that the learned Attorney-General, who should be the one to uphold sound constitutional usage, should not only give his countenance to this misuse of the word, but that he should, when pointedly asked a question, not have the courage to denounce that misuse. What I want to point out is this. In the original terms of the Treaty, as ratified in this House in December, it was stated that it was signed on behalf of the Irish Delegation. That has disappeared. I do not know why the authors of the Bill have not reproduced the whole of the original agreement, but they have left these words out. Nevertheless, we are entitled to remember how these Articles were signed. They were signed by certain Irishmen on behalf of the Irish Delegation. It says in the title of the Bill, "Certain Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland." The original Agreement, however, was not between Great Britain and Ireland, and was not purported so to be made. It was between certain gentlemen representing the British Government and certain other gentlemen representing the Irish Delegation. The distinction is a very important one. We know perfectly well from events that have since arisen that it is not beyond the
grounds of possibility that these Irish delegates did not represent Ireland or even a majority of the Irish people, and, therefore, we may be put in this extraordinary position, apart from the narrower objections to the use of the word "treaty," that we are asked in the Imperial Parliament to give the force of law to certain Articles of Agreement made with individuals whom the future may show to have had no right at all to speak on behalf of Ireland or of the majority of the Irish people. We do not know whether they were clothed with that authority or not, and under these circumstances I say it is a gross impropriety to use these words in this connection. Under our Constitution it is the distinct prerogrative of the Crown alone to make treaties. There are certain circumstances under which such treaties have to be sanctioned by this House. I believe that, constitutionally speaking, this House is not called upon to sanction the Treaty unless there are stipulations in it of a money nature. An ordinary treaty is made by the King as head of the executive authority in this country, and it does not even require the sanction of Parliament I think the Government are not treating this point with the importance it deserves, and I hope we may have some other Member of the Government, possibly the Lord President of the Council to whom we always listen with the greatest respect on matters of this sort, to tell us whether or not this is an improper use of this word.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved has been supported by the argument that a treaty can only be so described if it is made between representatives of two sovereign States and that the word treaty is not properly used if it describes an agreement between those who are not representatives of two separate sovereign States. I confess not to have known until to-day what is the full meaning of the word "treaty." When I heard the very powerful arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) I thought I might educate myself by going to the library and referring to the Johnson Dictionary there. The volume I hold is dated 1827, and, therefore, the antiquity and strength of the precedent which was established one way or the other as to
the meaning of this word is very important. This is what Dr. Johnson gives as his description and derivation of the word "treaty." It comes from the French "traité"and it is described first as "negotiation, act of treaty." That is illustrated by a quotation from Spenser:
She began a treaty to procure established terms twixt both their requests.
This refers to individuals, and not to sovereign States. Then the second explanation of the word "treaty" is this, and I ask my hon. Friend to give special attention to it:
A pact of accommodation relating to public affairs.
Not one word is there in either of these explanations about sovereign States. Then the last description is as follows:
Treaty—supplication, petition, solicitation.
So the description of the great authority on the meaning of the English language ends, and from beginning to end there is not a single word connecting the explanation of the word "treaty" with what my hon. Friends on the other side of the Committee appear to believe is a necessary derivation as an agreement between sovereign States. It is an agreement for the accommodation of public affairs, and if there ever was an agreement which might come within that derivation it is this agreement "for the accommodation of public affairs."

Mr. HAILWOOD: Considering some of the speeches we have heard from the supporters of the Amendment, the Committee seem to gather that the word "Treaty" implies that we are recognising the Irish Government. If I understand the spokesmen who are supporting the Amendment, that is their contention. There is another meaning which might be attached to this, and it is that we are treating with a nation. I believe the Government are doing right in keeping the word "Treaty," because it does imply that we are treating with a nation. The Irish people are not so much concerned at being considered as belonging to the Irish Republic, but they are very much concerned with being part and parcel of a nation. They are concerned in thinking that those who put their signatures to this Agreement really were acting on behalf of the nation, and were empowered to act on behalf of the Irish nation. I believe that it carries great weight, and on that account the
word ought to be retained. We have been asked by some of the speakers to point to a precedent, and a precedent has been mentioned with regard to the Treaty in South Africa; but there is another precedent, namely, the Treaty of Limerick. That is not the first time we have made a Treaty with the people of Ireland. The Treaty of Limerick is valued by the country, and we have a monument standing in Limerick, and Limerick is known all over the world as "the city of the violated Treaty." I support the word "Treaty" being retained, and I hope the Government will stick to it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I agree with the Mover of this Amendment that the matter under discussion is of considerable substance, and I cannot fall in with the view of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maldon (Sir F. Flannery) that it is a matter that ought to be considered from an etymological point of view. I think the Colonial Secretary is absolutely justified in saying that the word had a verbal significance in the sense that it did not add anything to the powers transferred to the Free State Government. It is by no means right to say that it is unimportant, because the Colonial Secretary admits that it has a verbal importance. It is very important indeed; and I will only just say one word about the argument brought forward by the Mover of the Amendment that it was unconstitutional and contrary to precedent for a King to make a treaty with any of his subjects. The Attorney-General mentioned that the Act of Union embodied the Treaty, and then we were told that in the case of the Amendment that at that time the condition of Ireland was not quite the same.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland was called the "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty."

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: These Articles of Agreement for a Treaty show that the matter is absolutely on all fours, and I thank my hon. Friend for having intervened. The only other point on which he and his friends are agreed is that they say the position is now different, and that Ireland was then in an entirely independent position. The Declaratory Act never abrogated the sovereignty of the King of Great Britain and Ireland, and
it is absolutely contrary to the fact to pretend that there is anything new in our Parliamentary language in implying in the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty an arrangement of this kind between the King and his subjects. We ought not to treat this in a narrow spirit, because it is of great sentimental importance at the present time in Ireland. These words have not been put in by the Parliamentary draftsmen who put together this Bill, but they were in the Treaty as it was published and circulated long before this Bill ever saw the light. I would beg the Committee not lightly to vote for this Amendment, and to consider that any alteration in the Treaty, especially after what has been said to-day, must help the extremists, and must destroy the prospects of those who are working for a settlement in Ireland. I do not think we have too large a margin to spare. We are told continually that the Government has given too much away, but the Treaty was only adopted in the Dail by five votes. If we whittle away that which we have already given, probably when the Treaty in its subsequent stages comes to be dealt with in the new Irish Parliament we shall ensure its defeat.

Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down did not deny the importance of this question; he agrees that it is an important one. He tried to give us an analogy which I do not think has any bearing on the matter at all. It is true there have been treaties between two separate legislative assemblies such as in Scotland and in Ireland, but now we want to know exactly where we are. We must not agree to this or that simply because it is put down. We want to know where we are to-day. I am sorry to say that the lawyers in the present case have not really contributed to our understanding of the question. The Colonial Secretary plainly and frankly stated—I think this to be the gist of his speech—"This is an agreement. Do not investigate it too much. It may mean a little too much, but it is accepted favourably in Ireland, and it would be dangerous to examine it too carefully." Then we have the learned Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Inskip), who told us that he had not consulted a dictionary, and he did not give us that enlightenment which we needed. We want to get from the lawyers what
is the meaning of this word in a legal sense. We want to know what the word means in law. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol tells us he thinks it may mean anything you like. It is one of the peculiarities of lawyers that they will hairsplit upon the exact meaning of a word if it suits them, but if it does not suit them, they tell us it really does not matter what the word means. Whatever we may think of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) this afternoon, as to whether his speech was quite worthy of his position, we know this at least, that he is determined on behalf of those for whom he speaks to press this word in its full meaning, and to declare to the world at large that we are making a surrender to a successful belligerent Power. These were almost the words of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. In these circumstances we cannot, whatever we may be asked, in our consciences agree with him. We want to know how far we are to be led. Willing as we are to support the Government, we cannot be led step by step further into difficulties, and into unconstitutional acts which may be dangerous hereafter.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Some of these Amendments are very important. On this particular subject we have had a most interesting Debate for over an hour, and almost every angle has been laid before the Committee. I venture to submit, in view of the many important Amendments on the Paper, that we ought to Divide.

HON. MEMBERS: Accept the Amendment.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Irish delegates postponed the matter for two months.

5.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: There are one or two points which have not been alluded to. This, we all agree, is a very important point. The Colonial Secretary said that it was a verbal matter, and the Attorney-General said he did not see anything in the use of the word. Treaty making, it appears, has been jealously guarded by the Imperial Government against the wishes of many of our Dominions. Canada and Australia at different times, through their responsible Statesmen, have endeavoured to negotiate them. Sir Wilfrid Laurier endeavoured to secure such a power, and
the point also arose in connection with the request for a Royal Commission on the Federation of Australia in 1870. They asked for that power, and we refused to give them treaty-making power. Yet you are going to give it to Ireland. You are giving it to Ireland by the fact that you are making a Treaty with them which conversely means that they are making a Treaty with you. In connection with a Royal Commission set up by the Government of Victoria to deal with the federal constitution the Report actually states—in paragraph 20—that if they were conceded the treaty-making power, that would fulfil the conditions constituting a sovereign State, and the treaty-making power has always meant that the State making the treaty is a sovereign State. That has been the touchstone and the test by which a sovereign State is differentiated from a subordinate State. We have absolutely refused to let our Dominions have the treaty-making power up to now. Rather have we resisted their demands to get that power, on the ground that it was properly the prerogative of the Imperial Government. Whether we call it a treaty or not, this matter is one of importance, because it means that by calling it a treaty we do indirectly recognise Ireland as a sovereign State, and therefore the matter is far more important than has been suggested by the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General. The Colonial Secretary drew an analogy between this Treaty and the Treaty made at Vereneeniging. That was not made with one of our own Dominions, but with a people who were not our subjects at the time. It is quite true that we had anenxed them, but they had not acknowledged that annexation, and there is no analogy in that case, nor is there any analogy with the case quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). In that case there was an Act of Union; a consolidation was coming about, and you could not possibly be recognising Ireland as a sovereign independent State, when you were actually consolidating Ireland in the United Kingdom.
You may call this an agreement, a compact, a pact, a covenant, a concordat, or a bargain, or any other word you like, but the word "treaty" has been uni-
versally recognised as showing the fact that people can make treaties with each other, to be the exact difference between a sovereign State and a subordinate State. Therefore this word is far more important than appears at first sight. If you look at Keith's "Responsible Government" you will find that the Imperial Grown has an absolute power of concluding treaties, and that there is no case yet known in which any treaty has been made without the consent of the Imperial Crown, even in the case of the treaty between Canada and France in 1907, made, I think, by Mr. Fielding. In that case, although the treaty was drawn up by the Canadians with the French Government, it was signed by our Minister in Paris, as His Majesty's representative, and, of course, that was done with the foreknowledge and approval of the Imperial Government, and thereby our treaty-making power was preserved. If you are going to allow that Ireland is in a position to make a treaty either with us or with anyone else, then you will find Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and all the other parts of the British Empire claiming the same right. If they cut away from the universal rule that we have maintained up to now, and get the right to make separate treaties, it is going to be a very serious thing indeed for the British Empire. It is only by keeping the treaty-making power here in the hands of the Imperial Government that we can keep the British Empire linked together properly. If they all go off making treaties in different directions with foreign nations, then the end of the British Empire is within sight.
Not only have we never allowed the Dominions to make treaties, but we have never, in any period of our history, made a treaty with any party within the family circle of the British Empire. Therefore this is an exceedingly bad precedent. Nor do I understand, seeing that the treaty-making power lies legally with the Crown, how this House, legally speaking, has any right to ratify a treaty. Although the practice has grown up in recent years of bringing treaties to this House for approval, strictly speaking, the legal constitutional power lies in the Crown. If that be so, how can the Crown make a treaty with itself, because the Crown is just as much the Crown of Ireland at present as it is the Crown of England?
If this is setting up a new precedent, surely it requires a great deal more attention from Ministers, and I ask the Colonial Secretary to reply to this question as to the treaty-making power. Will he answer the argument I have put forward that the treaty-making power has always been kept in the hands of the Imperial Government, that we have never allowed any Dominion of the Empire, so far, to have the treaty-making power, and will he say why it was necessary to give that power to Ireland under this Agreement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The insertion of these words does not convey any power. They deal with the closing of an episode. As far as the future is concerned, the position of Ireland with regard to treaties will be exactly the same as the position of Canada, Australia, and other Dominions.

Mr. GWYNNE: The Colonial Secretary has asked us to proceed to a Division now, and I do not want to delay it, but he did so on the ground that we had had a very full discussion and very full speeches. Yes, but the Government have entirely failed to answer the questions which we put to them, and as the Attorney-General and the Colonial Secretary have both failed, I ask that the Prime Minister should answer them. I was going to invite the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but I see he has just gone. We always like to hear his views with regard to Ireland, and he is especially fitted to speak this afternoon, because he is not only a lawyer, but he has experience of Ireland. One statement has been made, which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. It was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). He said we ought not to oppose these words because it was part of the Agreement which had been made, and the Agreement must not be whittled down. His point was that the terms we gave were so poor and so inadequate that they were only accepted in Dail Eireann by a majority of four or five votes. What more does he expect us to give? What more can we give? Talk about whittling down—why everything which could be asked for has been given. I can see only one advantage in leaving in the word "Treaty." It is one which appeals to me, but I am not sure that it will appeal to the Colonial Secretary. I am informed
on good authority that Ministers who are responsible for ratifying the conclusion of a Treaty which proves to be derogatory to the honour, or of disadvantage to the welfare, of the nation are liable to impeachment. If the other arguments used by hon. Members have no weight with the Colonial Secretary, I trust he will consider that liability. If he does not answer the question to-day, at some future date he may be called upon to answer it in another place.

Mr. LINDSAY: I only rise in order to refer to a remark made by the learned Attorney-General, which I suggest to the Committee was entirely wrong. He quoted the instance of the Union with Ireland. It must be remembered that after the repeal of Poyning's Act in 1782, and the establishment of what was known as Grattan's Parliament, Ireland was technically, though not really, a sovereign State and claimed to be so. The position of Ireland was precisely the same as the position of Scotland before 1707, and the Union was the only way in which the matter could be arranged, and the Union had to be arranged by Treaty, and the Treaty was practically made between two sovereign independent Powers. I think the learned Attorney-General did not state the precedent accurately.

Captain REDMOND: The Union was a fraud.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: There is some doubt in my mind as to whether the Government in regard to this question do not speak with one voice on one day

and another voice on another day. There has been published, within the last day or two, the terms of the Agreement with Egypt. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is here and perhaps he will tell us why Lord Allenby can be sent out with the terms of concessions to Egypt, and there is no question of a Treaty there?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is this a discussion on Egypt?

Sir C. YATE: Why, if no Treaty has been given to Egypt, should there be a Treaty given to Ireland? On that point I should like to ask what is the difference of status between the two countries which causes a Treaty to be given to Ireland and not to Egypt?

Brigadier-General SURTEES: I should like to say that the best evidence as to the original exact meaning of the word "treaty" has not yet been adduced. In the Library of this House there are some 20 ponderous volumes weighing considerably more than Johnson's Dictionary. The Latin word for "treaty" is fœdus and the name of this work is Rymer's "Fœdera." That contains a large collection of treaties—some hundreds of them—and not one of these treaties has been made between a sovereign State and a subordinate State. That is all I have to say.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 58.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
[5.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spenoer


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Ammon, Charles George
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Breese, Major Charles E.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)


Astor, Viscountess
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Atkey, A. R.
Briggs, Harold
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bromfield, William
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Major D. C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City of Lon.)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Devlin, Joseph


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Barnston, Major Harry
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Edge, Captain Sir William


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Carr, W. Theodore
Ednam, Viscount


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Casey, T. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Evans, Ernest


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Fildes, Henry


Bigland, Alfred
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Finney, Samuel


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Kenyon, Barnet
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Foot, Isaac
Kiley, James Daniel
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., stretford)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rose, Frank H.


Forrest, Walter
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Royce, William Stapleton


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Galbraith, Samuel
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Gardiner, James
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H, (Univ., Wales)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gardner, Ernest
Lloyd, George Butler
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Gee, Captain Robert
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Seager, Sir William


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lorden, John William
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Gillis, William
Lort-Willlams, J.
Sexton, James


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Gould, James C.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.
Simm, M. T.


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
M'Lean, Lieut-Col. Charles W. W.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Spencer, George A.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Stanton, Charles Butt


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Sugden, W. H.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Martin, A. E.
Sutherland, Sir William


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Sutton, John Edward


Hallwood, Augustine
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hallas, Eldred
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Halls. Walter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Morris, Richard
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hancock, John George
Morrison. Hugh
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Mount, Sir William Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Murchison, C. K.
Wallace, J.


Haslam, Lewis
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Hayday, Arthur
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Murray, Or. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Myers, Thomas
Waring, Major Walter


Hills, Major John Waller
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hinds, John
Neal, Arthur
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J G.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hogge, James Myles
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
White, Col. G. O. (Southport)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Norman. Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Holmes, J. Stanley
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Howard, Major S. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hudson, R. M.
Parker, James
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Pearce, Sir William
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Windsor, Viscount


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wise, Frederick


Irving, Dan
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Jephcott, A. R.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Jesson, C.
Pratt, John William
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Purchase, H. G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Johnstone, Joseph
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Younger, Sir George


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)



Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kennedy, Thomas
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jellett, William Morgan


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kidd, James


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Donald, Thompson
Lindsay, William Arthur


Brassey, H. L. C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Lynn, R. J.


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
M'Connell, Thomas Edward


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)
M'Guffin, Samuel


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Moles, Thomas




Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Poison, Sir Thomas A.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Reid, D. D.
Whitla, Sir William


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Remnant, Sir James
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Nield, Sir Herbert
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stewart, Gershom



Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Colonel Gretton and Sir J. Butcher.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "and," to insert the word "Southern."
Unless we insert the word "Southern" in this Sub-section we make a statement which is incorrect, as no Treaty has been made between Great Britain and Ireland, and therefore, if a Treaty has not been made, it cannot be set forth. I call it a Treaty in deference to the majority of the Committee, who voted, I think, most of them against their consciences, or perhaps I had better not quite say that.

Mr. R. McNEILL: On a point of Order. Will this Amendment put out of order an Amendment in my name, to insert at the end of this Sub-section the words
Subject to the following modification, that is to say, Southern Ireland shall be substituted for Ireland in Article 1 of the said Agreement, and the said Articles of Agreement shall be construed accordingly.
It raises the same point, and I would like to take your opinion, Sir, as to which is the better place in which to move it.

Colonel NEWMAN: On a point of Order. Might I ask if this Amendment rules out my Amendment to leave out the word "Ireland" and to insert "the Irish Free State"? Also, does it rule out my Amendment to add a new Sub-section at the end of the Clause in the following terms:
(4) In the Articles of Agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland and the Irish Government shall be held to mean the Irish Free State and the Government of the Irish Free State, respectively.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I think the Amendment now before the Committee would cover the Amendment of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill). It certainly covers the Amendment standing next in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman).

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury suffers in any way, because, if my Amendment be carried, there will necessarily be
consequential Amendments, which will carry out the purpose he desires to achieve in his Amendment. I was saying that I desired to see that this Clause 1 sets forth correctly what has taken place. The Committee knows perfectly well what has taken place. First of all, in the Act of 1920, two Irelands were constituted. There was the Northern Ireland, including six counties, and the Southern Ireland, consisting of 26 counties, and there was to be a Parliament in each. The Parliament in Northern Ireland was set up and is, I believe, functioning at the present moment. They have obeyed the Act of this House, agreed to by His Majesty, but Southern Ireland did not set up their Parliament, and they remained, under the Act of 1920, as governed by some arrangement—I think it was some sort of Crown Colony arrangement—which was going to be set up in the event of their refusing to set up their Parliament. They did not set up their Parliament, and consequently the Crown Colony arrangement ought to have been set up by the Government if they desired to carry out the Act of Parliament. As nothing would be more foreign to their nature than to break an agreement or an arrangement which was come to, I am really surprised that they never carried out that particular pact of the Act of 1920, but as they did not carry it out, what happened? The Southern part of Ireland was left in a disorganised state. We have the statement of the Colonial Secretary that the Provisional Government, or so-called Provisional Government, of Southern Ireland has no power. Until this Treaty is passed, they have no power and no legal status, and can do nothing.
I need not weary the Committee by pointing out that Northern Ireland had nothing whatever to do with the framing of this Bill, and not only did not agree, but -was not even consulted. Northern Ireland, after all, although the population is something like one-third of the whole of Ireland, consists of the flower of the Irish nation. I think my hon.
Friends here will agree that that statement is correct. That being so, we arrive at the particular position, that although an Act was passed only a year ago by this Government giving Northern Ireland a Parliament of its own, Northern Ireland was not even consulted as to this Treaty, and it is perfectly evident you cannot say it is an agreement between Great Britain and Ireland. If there is a Treaty at all between two parties who are capable of entering into a treaty, it must be between Great Britain and Southern Ireland, and I am a little doubtful whether you can put into this Clause that there has been a treaty between anybody, because I do not think it is at all certain that Mr. Michael Collins and Mr. Griffith represent anybody but themselves, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) pointed out, in that wonderful body, Dail Eireann, these gentlemen only had a majority of five, which, I think, was afterwards reduced to a majority of two. That does not make it look as if they were really acting, at any rate, for a large majority of the people of Southern Ireland, and today, so far as I can make out, the Dail Eireann is the self-constituted body. In any case, there can be no question that this Agreement was made between certain persons purporting to represent Southern Ireland and His Majesty's Government. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not regard this as merely a verbal matter, and that he will accept the Amendment.

Whereupon Black Rod being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER: reported the Royal Assent to:

1. The Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act,
2. The Coroners (Emergency Provisions Continuance) Act, 1922.

IRISH FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Sir F. BANBURY: When I was interrupted I was saying that I thought in all probability the Colonial Secretary would accept my Amendment, and in order that there may be no unnecessary argument I would draw his attention to the White Paper circulated by the Government (Command 1560) entitled:
Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland.
If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to page 6 he will see there the following:
This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by His Majesty's Government for the approval of Parliament, and by the Irish signatories"—
not by the representatives of Ireland—
to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and, if approved, shall be ratified by the necessary legislation.
That is signed on behalf of the British Delegation—I need not read the names, they are well-known to the Committee— and also on behalf of the Irish Delegation, who did not even pretend to represent Ireland, but was merely an Irish Delegation. They can do nothing until this particular Treaty has been ratified by Southern Ireland. Therefore I think it is perfectly clear that my Amendment is necessary to bring the Clause into conformity with the Articles of Agreement. The Colonial Secretary may say to me: "Well, your arguments are very good"—I feel sure he will say that-—"and very much to the point. They are practically unanswerable, but you must remember that Northern Ireland becomes subject to this Treaty until it applies to contract out of the Treaty." That may be so. That is not necessary to my argument, because my argument is that the Treaty was between certain people supposed to be representative of Southern Ireland and not between us on one side and Ireland, as a whole, on the other. Therefore, whether or not the Government have chosen to put Northern Ireland into the position that without their consent or knowledge that are forced into agreement with somebody they do not wish to be forced into agreement with—they may be right or
they may be wrong—does not touch my point, which is that if the agreement is to be made with the representatives of Southern Ireland that fact should be stated in the Clause in question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman expressed two hopes, that in the first place I would accept the Amendment and that I would say his arguments were very good. I am quite ready to do a deal with him on the subject, and to pay a tribute to the skill and resource with which his arguments were framed and the aptitude with which they were displayed, if he, on his part, will withdraw his Amendment. Anyhow, I cannot accept it. Perhaps I had better say quite plainly that one reason is all-sufficing. We cannot alter the text of the instrument either by altering it in the Schedule or by implication in the Clauses of the Bill. The instrument was submitted to Parliament, and after a prolonged Debate last year it was affirmed by the House by an enormous majority. If there are faults in it, those faults the House has made itself responsible for, as well as the Government. The matter is settled, absolutely settled, so far as we are concerned and so far as open voting can make it.

Sir F. BANBURY: But some hon. Members now see the error of their ways!

Mr. CHURCHILL: You cannot possibly go back and alter the description of the instrument, still less can you alter in any particular its provisions. On behalf of the Government I cannot possibly agree to any amendment which alters, modifies, extends, explains, elucidates, amplifies or otherwise affects the text of the instrument which we call the Treaty. I do not expect for a moment to convince my right hon. Friend the Member for the City, or dissuade him urging other points upon our attention, but I must make it clear: if as a result of a Division inspired by his eloquence or the cogency of his arguments, or as the result of his Parliamentary resource, experience and knowledge, he were to persuade the House to effect any alteration, modification, amplification, etc., of this Treaty instrument then the Bill would be dead, the Treaty would be dead, and the Government would be dead.

Sir F. BANBURY: Then I propose to persevere with my Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a perfectly reasonable attitude for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt, more especially as he knows that he does not stand in any danger of having to face the full consequences of his action. We must ask the Committee to support us in adhering strictly to the terms in which the Treaty is described.

Captain C. CRAIG: I have listened with some surprise to the speech which has been made by the Colonial Secretary, particularly that part in which he informed us that no modification, etc., of the Bill would be permitted. But on the Order Paper we find that he himself at a later date will propose very considerably to modify the Bill. I am surprised, then, at his statement that no modification of the Bill will be permitted.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say "no modification of the Bill." I said "no modification of the instrument."

Captain CRAIG: But if what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do is done he will alter the instrument. But I leave that point. The right hon. Gentleman has told us he cannot accept any alteration of the Treaty. He says that with any alteration the Treaty is dead. That is not, I submit, the true position at all. There is nothing actually in the Treaty which will prevent its having effect if certain alterations are made. How do we know that the signatories of the Treaty on the other side would not accept the Treaty in spite of certain alterations being made? Are we to assume that Mr. Collins, who knows just as well as we do in Ulster that there are several very difficult questions involved in this Treaty—that he and his party would not accept the Treaty with certain modifications? I say, therefore, it is not true to say that the Treaty necessarily is dead.
In regard to the introduction of this word "Southern," I must confess that from the moment I saw the text of this agreement it has been a mystery to me what it was which forced the Government or induced the Government to treat the matter in the way they have done. What induced them, if they wanted to make an agreement or a treaty with Southern Ireland, instead of making it practically with Southern Ireland, to include the
whole of Ireland in the Treaty and leave the Northern Parliament to vote itself out? I have asked on more than one occasion for an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that it is a roundabout way of doing what is wanted. If so, why has he not given an explanation to the House as to the adpotion of the roundabout and circuitous method of arriving at a certain state of affairs rather than the perfectly obvious and straightforward way, seeing we make this Treaty with the representatives of the Southern part of Ireland? I should like to know the considerations which dictated this method of dealing with the question. Further, I should like to call the attention of the House to the chronological order of the events which led up to this Treaty, and to emphasise the point I have already made.
The Act of 1920 was passed. The Parliament was opened in Belfast by the King, who made a speech which, as we all know, is always, at least, approved of by his advisers. In that speech His Majesty made use of these words:
For all who love Ireland as I do this is a profound and moving occasion in Irish history—
In another part the King says:
I could not allow myself to give to Ireland by deputy alone my earnest prayers and good wishes for the new era which opens with this ceremony. I therefore have come in person as the head of the Empire to inaugurate this Parliament on Irish soil. I inaugurate it with a deep feeling of hope, and I feel assured that you, the Parliament of Northern Ireland, will do your utmost to make it an instrument for happiness and good government in all parts of the community which you represent.
There are several other quotations which I could read, but I do not desire to and I will not. I desire just to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this speech contains a massage of goodwill towards Northern Ireland, and a message of hope, almost of certainty, that our Parliament is going to do its work well and for the contentment and happiness of the people. Within a month of that speech the Prime Minister had started negotiations with the representatives of Southern Ireland, and after going on for some months they came to an end. Just before that the Prime Minister—bear in mind the responsibility largely, if not the entire responsibility, for what is put
into His Majesty's mouth is upon the Prime Minister—addressed a communication to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—only four months after that Parliament had been opened. In that communication the right hon. Gentleman says:
It is desirable for a settlement of the Irish question that an All-Ireland Parliament should be set up in which Ulster is to take part.
6.0. P.M.
That was thrown out, as I knew it would be, by the Cabinet of Northern Ireland, and yet within one week of that time the text of the Treaty was made known to the public, and then it was found that Northern Ireland was included in this All-Ireland Treaty. It is an absolute insult to have done this without our consent and without us having been consulted in any shape or form. Again I ask, why was it done? What object has been served by putting Ulster into it at all? Was it not enough to raise a storm of indignation in Ulster by putting in a Boundary Commission? Why were we included in a Parliament in regard to which they know we had no intention whatever of entering at the present time? I think this is a gratuitous insult to Ulster. This is not the simple matter which some hon. Members appear to think it is, because in Ulster we feel very strongly upon it. How did the Prime Minister deal with it? I drew his attention to this matter in the Debate in December last, and he said:
I come now to the more vexed question of Ulster. Here we had all given a definitely clear pledge that under no conditions would we agree to any proposals that would involve the coercion of Ulster. That was a pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley when I served under him as my chief. I fully assented to it. I have always been strongly of the view that you could not do it without provoking a conflict which would simply mean transferring the agony from the South to the North, and thus unduly prolonging the Irish controversy instead of settling it. Therefore, on policy I have always been in favour of the pledge that there should be no coercion of Ulster. There were some of my hon. Friends who thought fit to doubt whether we meant to stand by that pledge. We have never for a moment forgotten the pledge, not for an instant. That did not preclude us from endeavouring to persuade Ulster to come into an All-Ireland Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1921; cols. 38–39, Vol. 149.]
Only four months before the right hon. Gentleman spoke those words the King
had opened our Parliament, and His Majesty had spoken in terms of the highest hope, almost amounting to certainty, to the effect that our Parliament was going to be of the greatest benefit to the North of Ireland, and he spoke many other words of hope and congratulation, and yet within four or five months pf that time we had the Prime Minister doing his best to coerce us into an All-Ireland Parliament. I have said already what I thought of that attempt at coercion, but it seems to me that this inclusion of Ulster in this Treaty is only a continuation of that attempt to coerce us, which I regret to say that we see in a great many acts of the Prime Minister. It is inexcusable, and it is a method of which any Government, from the mere point of view of businesslike qualities, should be absolutely ashamed.
In the second place, I say it is an unworthy way in which to treat a community such as Ulster, which is trying to do its duty by the Empire. In the third place, I say to the Prime Minister that it is only another example of the attempted coercion of Ulster. The Prime Minister has attempted this on various occasions, and far from having had the effect hoped for, it has only had the effect of making Ulster more determined to stay separate as she is at the present moment. I conclude my remarks by repeating to the House that I do not think it is at all necessary to argue that the Treaty would be dead if such an Amendment as the one we are now discussing were carried. The Colonial Secretary has laid great stress on the fact that the House in December last had given a large majority in favour of this Bill, and that is so. I submit, however, that at that time the House did not know anything like as much as it knows now upon this question. The generality of hon. Members are not as conversant with Irish affairs as the Irish Members are, and they do not realise the full effect of these Clauses. I am certain that if we had had a better opportunity of acquainting the House with the objectionable portions of this document, there would have been a very different division upon it. I exhort hon. Members to use their undoubted prerogative if they see anything which they consider bad in this Treaty, and to vote against it.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken has dealt with this Amendment from the point
of view of Northern Ireland, and I want to say a few words from the point of view of a plain Englishman. I think everybody in this House will agree with the broad general proposition that any Act of Parliament which we pass ought to state truthfully the facts in a proper and accurate manner, and not in a way calculated to deceive. May I ask the Colonial Secretary what were the facts? Was this Treaty made between Great Britain and Ireland, or was it not? I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to admit that the Treaty was not made between Great Britain and Ireland. It was only made between Great Britain and the representatives of that portion of Ireland which is referred to in the Act of 1920 as being "so much of Ireland as is not comprised in Northern Ireland."
It might be said that that is even too wide a statement. There are some people who think that the Treaty was made with certain signatories, and that it was not made with the whole body of representatives of Southern Ireland. I again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that this Treaty was made only with Southern Ireland, and does he dispute the statement that Northern Ireland was not consulted? If that is the case, and if the facts are as I have stated, I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Government thinks it necessary in Clause 1 of the Bill to put a misleading statement of that kind? What is the advantage of it? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider this question.

Mr. LYNN: The Colonial Secretary seems to have given one very conclusive reason why this Amendment should be passed, and it is that if it be passed the Government would die. That is exactly the thing the country wants. There is another reason why this Amendment should pass, and it is that the Government signed away territory that did not belong to them. Certain territory has been allocated by Act of Parliament to Northern Ireland, and this House has no right to allow the Government to take from it property that was given to it 14 months ago. I think the Colonial Secretary ought to agree to put in the word "Southern," in order to make it accurate, because as it stands at the present time it is most inaccurate. It speaks of "Ireland," but Northern
Ireland is not included, and therefore to make the proposal accurate we should pass this Amendment.

Colonel NEWMAN: I am not so certain that I care very much about the insertion of this word, because, after all, Southern Ireland means Southern Ireland. I would like to point out that there is a headland which is the most northerly point in Ireland, and it is in eluded in Southern Ireland. I think the word "Ireland" was only put in to meet the objections of the ex-President of the Irish Republic and it is only a bit of swank. We are making the Treaty with Ireland, and Ireland is a mother country, and therefore it is a nation. If Ireland is a mother country, so is Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: So is Yorkshire.

Colonel NEWMAN: But are you making a Treaty with the population of Ireland? The answer is "No." Are you making a Treaty with the whole of the people who live in Ireland? The answer is "No." Do these provisions apply to the whole of Ireland, or only to a part of Ireland? The answer again is "No." You talk in this Measure about Ireland. I am going to talk about the Irish Free State. Just look for a moment at the Schedule in the Articles of Agreement. In the Oath the Members of Parliament of the Irish Free State make the following declaration:
I … do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established.
You are making a Treaty with the Irish Free State. You want people like myself in due course to swear allegiance to the Irish Free State. Then you put down something which you really do not mean in Article 8 of the Treaty, which tells us that the Government of the Irish Free State may maintain a military defence force which shall not exceed in size such proportion to the military establishment of Great Britain as the population of Ireland bears to the population of Great Britain. You do not mean that. You mean the proportion that the Irish Free State bears to the population of Great Britain. You are asking me to swear an oath which I do not mean and you do not mean, and Clause 8 of the Agreement puts down something which you do not
mean. I support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, though I much prefer my own Amendment. You are making a Treaty with the Irish Free State, but not with Ulster. Ulster repudiates it. Therefore, why put in what you do not mean? It may be said from the Front Bench opposite, "we want to continue this for the next few days in Ireland so as to give a good show in Dublin on Sunday," but let us say that Ireland means the Irish Free State.

Mr. STEWART: I support the Amendment, and especially the remarks of my hon. Friend the leader of the Ulster party (Captain Craig). It was my privilege to see the opening of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and to witness the most magnificent reception which the King and Queen received on that great occasion, and I think that this Treaty has a tendency to cause misunderstanding on the part of Northern Ireland and to confuse the good sentiments which were expressed on that day in the King's Speech, which I thought a very fine one. It contained nothing to show the possibility that the Parliament of Northern Ireland was at any future time to be subordinated to any other Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland have the right to ask for a full explanation of why they are put under the Sinn Fein Parliament by this Treaty. It is an example of the very bad legislation which takes place after midnight. I can only wish that the Government had not been hustled as they were into signing a Treaty of this sort in the early hours of the morning. I believe that, if they had thought it over calmly the next day, they would not have inflicted the injury which they have inflicted on the people of Ulster. It looks, to those of us who have taken an interest in this question for a long time, that to please their enemies the Government have sold their friends. I cannot see how certain violations which have occurred in the constitution as given to Ulster can be justified by any other supposition. It seems to me that the sanctity of a promise given in 1920 with the full consent of this House and accepted by Northern Ireland is just as serious and binding an obligation as any promise made subsequently in 1921. If there could be such a thing as finality in politics, I think that the inhabitants of Northern Ireland should have been
allowed their rights as granted in 1920, both in this matter and as regards the boundaries and other things of which we will speak later on.

Mr. MOLES: The right hon. Baronet put the whole case for the Amendment in one phrase. He desired that the Government in this Bill should tell the simple truth. The Colonial Secretary, resisting that Amendment, put the whole case for the Government in effect in one phrase, that the last thing that the Government desired to do was to tell the truth. He told us in effect that that was the position. There may be untruths in every line of the Bill, it may bristle- with faults, defects, and blemishes from first to last, but we must not alter a word of it. Eight or wrong, it must stand. True or false, rotten or sound, we must not touch a word of it. It is significant that in no quarter of the House, not even from the voluble Front Bench opposite, has anybody got up to support the Government on this matter. I suspect the reason. The Colonial Secretary had his eye on the Lobby when he told us that if we touched this the entire Treaty is dead and the Government is dead. I should have thought that that would have been received with some measure of applause by the Front Bench opposite, but I suspect that the Colonial Secretary and the Front Bench, in thinking of the death of the Government, have this in common, that neither is quite sure about the resurrection. The sentiment of the Colonial Secretary seems to be to parody some well-known lines—
Let laws and learning, art and commerce die,
But leave us still this rotten Treaty.
What is the objection to inserting the word "Southern" if you mean Southern? If there be no answer to this, and there has been none, can anyone challenge the view that the Government do not favour plain dealing in these matters? Nothing has been so disastrous to Ireland as double dealing on the part of the Government, this Government and others. But they are only postponing their troubles and not getting rid of them. If they imagine they are bamboozling Sinn Fein by retaining this word they will find that Sinn Fein will bamboozle them. Mr. de Valera boasted at the very first meeting of the Dail:
We have beaten them in warfare, and we will beat them in statesmanship.
He meant, of course, the kind of trickery that is called statesmanship. These delegates had no right whatever to speak for Northern Ireland, and the Treaty which they made in the name of Ireland is repudiated in Northern Ireland. They have no authority from us to bring us in in any degree. It is challenged even that they speak for Southern Ireland. When they put the acceptance of this Treaty to test in the Dail they only just carried it, so that there would be a good case even, if my right hon. Friend wished to change his Amendment, to take out the word "Southern." If the Government mean Southern Ireland and that Northern Ireland is in no way bound, why do they not say so? I hope that the Colonial Secretary will approach this Amendment in a spirit of more seriousness and responsibility than he has done up to the present. It is unworthy of him to treat a proposal, coming from the quarter from which this comes, in this way, and it is unworthy of this House if it will put up with this sort of thing any longer.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: It would be very desirable if some other Member of the Government would explain why they consider this Amendment so impossible of acceptance. The Colonial Secretary gave no reason why he would not accept it. He merely said that if we did accept it the Bill would be dead, the Treaty would be dead, and the Government would be dead. I quite understand that the agreement which is come to cannot be amended, because it was the agreement come to on that particular occasion between the leaders of Sinn Fein and Members of the Government. But it occurs to me that this Bill, which is giving the force of law to that Agreement, can be amended if the Government wish to do so. We have had no reason why the Amendment was not accepted, but merely a blank refusal. It would facilitate me in making up my mind if reasons can be advanced why this Amendment is impossible of acceptance.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I can hardly believe that no Member of the Government intends to take any further part in this discussion. Is it possible that the Chief Secretary, who is also present, does not intend to take any part in discussing this question, which he seems to treat as a very good joke?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. I never treated anything in relation to Ireland as a joke.

Mr. McNEILL: All I can say is that the humorous appearance of the right hon. Gentleman's countenance belies his words, but, of course, I accept his statement that he is treating the matter seriously. If so, I hope that he intends to give us some reason in addition to that given by the Colonial Secretary. It is a very extraordinary thing, when this matter is under discussion, that it should be treated in such a manner by the Government. We are entitled to protest against the action of the Colonial Secretary in saying at the beginning of the Debate, which did not surprise all of us, that the Government did not intend to allow anything to pass which would alter this instrument. Even supposing that they were right in this, which we do not admit, it is still an unreasonable thing to refuse to give a reasonable answer to questions put to the Government. It is an extraordinary thing that, especially on this particular Amendment, we are not favoured by the presence of any of the so-called Unionist Members of the Cabinet. I can very well understand that they prefer to be absent. Of course, I exclude my right hon. Friend the President of the Council (Mr. Balfour) because, although he was a most respected Member of the Cabinet, he was entirely unconnected with this particular instrument. Unfortunately for the country, as I think, he was not at home when this transaction was entered into. I have great confidence that if he had been we should not be debating this Measure here to-day.
What I want to point out is that these Unionist members of the Cabinet who are responsible for this Treaty in its present form are not taking part in this Debate. Why is the Prime Minister not here? The Prime Minister is primarily responsible. He has been in connection with this particular proposal charged in this House, and I charge him again with dishonourable conduct. He ought to be here. He has never yet thought fit to give any answer, and it certainly is very strange that, when charged by Members of the House of Commons, however unimportant he may think them, with not
being reliable in his word, he neither chooses to rise to answer them nor to come back into the House when the same question is raised again. That is a very extraordinary procedure, and I again put the question, which, perhaps, the Chief Secretary will deign to answer—it has been put often before—why was Northern Ireland included in this Treaty? If it was that the Ministers in the Downing Street Conference were forced to do this by the malefactors with whom they were negotiating, let them at least have the courage to say so. For my part, however, I am very doubtful if that was the reason of it all. I believe that this was a deliberate act of treachery on the part of our own Cabinet Ministers, and the more one looks at this Treaty, the more one looks into the various Clauses and into what it means, the more one sees that it is steeped in treachery from beginning to end. The Colonial Secretary says that Parliament is so committed by the Division that was taken in December that, forsooth, it is not a free agent at the present time to give a vote as it chooses on this question. I repudiate that entirely. The House of Commons is perfectly entitled at any time to say that its second thoughts are better than its first. If the House of Commons chose to turn down this Treaty now—I do not say for a moment that it will, I do not even suggest that it could or ought—if the House thought it to be its duty to do so, it is not in any way committed by the vote that was taken some months ago.
I again ask the Chief Secretary whether he is going to answer our questions. I say that the Cabinet had no right, moral or otherwise, to include Northern Ireland in this Treaty with the representatives of the South. They were pledged in every possible way not to do it. They were pledged against the coercion of Ulster. Is it not idle for the right hon. Gentleman to put forward the pretence that there is no coercion of Ulster in this case, merely because she is given by another Clause the right to vote herself out? They put her in, by their own signature, by an action which they say now they have no right or power to go back upon, not only without her knowledge and consent, but in the face of her expressed disapproval and refusal, because, only a few days before this instrument was signed, the Prime Minister
and his colleagues, including the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for War—who also has not the courage to be here—all had received direct notice in the strongest and most unequivocal terms from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, not only that he would not consent to such a proposal, but that he would not even discuss it. In these circumstances I say it was dishonourable in the highest degree for them, behind the backs of the Parliament and the Government which they have themselves set up, and which they had advised the King to encourage and countenance by his presence only a few months before, to go and put in this Clause including Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland, although they must have known perfectly well that the provision enabling her to Vote herself out would be taken advantage of at the earliest possible moment. It was a mere sham and pretence to say that it was not coercing Ulster when they relied upon that privilege Clause to put her in later in the Treaty. I do not think that too strong a protest can be made, not merely against the policy that has been pursued, but against the dishonourable conduct of every Cabinet Minister who was concerned in it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has endeavoured to import some heat into the Debate, and for that purpose has used a number of terms and expressions, and has made a number of charges, which I hope in his heart of hearts he does not think should be taken literally. At any rate, I am not going to take them in a literal form. If I were to do so, I should say that they had been answered repeatedly in open and prolonged debate in the House of Commons—[Interruption]—only a fortnight ago. The House having heard the whole discussion, and having heard the full statement of the case by my hon. Friend and his colleagues, decided by an overwhelming majority to endorse in principle for the second time the policy to which we are committed, and to which we have committed the country, by this Treaty. When these charges of dishonour, breach of honourable obligations, and so on, are flung about in this way, one is entitled to remind the hon. Gentleman that there are a large number of people in the House of Commons who have associated themselves with the policy
of the Government who are equally to be blamed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and fall equally under the ban of assertions of this kind.
It is not my purpose to raise needless controversy, but I should like to say that it was not from any want of courtesy to the Mover of the Amendment, or to those who have taken part in this Debate, that I did not attempt to embark again upon the great issues of principle and the obvious matters of fact which are involved in the whole of this policy. We have had this afternoon two or three Amendments, of apparently a technical or verbal character, which have been made the vehicles for debating over and over again the discussions that we had before Christmas on the original Treaty, and, only a fortnight ago, on the Second Reading of the Bill. Again and again the same argument has come up, and even the same epithets. I have not thought it useful, during the Committee stage, to argue again the issues which we fought out at length on the Second Reading. That is not because I do not wish to give an answer. I can give a short answer if I am asked, "Why is it that you have declined to insert the word 'Southern'?" The reason, as is well known, is that we were negotiating with men whom, for good or for ill, rightly or wrongly, we decided to consider as representing the Irish nation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh" and "Sit down!"]

Sir W. DAVISON: And the Northern Parliament was in existence!

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not a very logical outcry against me. Having sat here for the last hour, and having been scolded again and again in most harsh terms for not rising in my place to offer some explanation, I get up and begin to offer an explanation, and hon. Members then advise me to sit down.

Mr. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very startling announcement as to the attitude of the Government. May I ask him whether that was the view of the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I am allowed to finish my statement, I would say that, rightly or wrongly, we dealt with these men as men entitled to speak on behalf of Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] What is the quarrel? It is in the Treaty.
There is the language of the Treaty. Having done that, we then made the provision with which the Committee is familiar for enabling Ulster to contract out of the arrangement. What is the use of hon. Gentlemen pretending that this strikes them with an air of novelty? This is the very foundation of the principle upon which we have been proceeding, and it is the language reiterated in various parts of the Bill and also in the instrument of the Treaty. There is nothing unexpected about that. I say we hope that these men will be found to be able to speak on behalf of the Irish people, subject to Ulster's absolute right to contract out. We hope they will be found to be able to speak for the Irish nation and to bring that part of the Irish nation from which we have so long been estranged into better harmony with this country. That is the explanation which I offer, and which, after ail, is only a fragment of the argument exhaustively canvassed in long Debates here, and treated of in great public discussions throughout the country. Whether hon. Members who, as we know, take an opposite view agree with me or not, I hope they will, at any rate, acquit me of any desire to avoid giving them an answer on a question like this. My only desire is not to re-try in Committee the issues which have already been fought out and decided on the Floor of the House.
Before I sit down, let me just say this. I should like to remind the Committee that I have pointed out that, as far as the instrument of the Treaty is concerned, we are not capable of altering it. It is perfectly true that the House of Commons is capable of destroying the Treaty, that the House is capable of destroying the Bill, of destroying the administration. The House has the absolute right and power to do that in its pleasure if it thinks fit. There is no question of fettering the power of Parliament; there is no power to fetter it. But we, as a Government, and the signatories of the Treaty, and those who have supported us, are in honour bound to go through with it. The men on the other side of St. George's Channel are proceeding on this basis, and only on this basis, and the political services which they can render to the general welfare depend wholly upon this. We, too, must make good our part on this side, and I venture to say with great
respect to the Committee that we are incapable of accepting any Amendment which affects in any way the character of the Treaty. I hope that, when a Division is taken on this Amendment, it will be realised that it is also taken on that issue, that the Treaty is incapable of amendment. I directly challenge that issue, and I think it would be very wrong for me to make any concealment of it. I say, by all means let us try that matter out to a conclusion. The vote will be taken not only on the Amendment immediately before the Committee, but on the general principle that the Treaty as such is incapable of Amendment.

Captain CRAIG: I said in the course of my remarks earlier in this Debate that the Government had insulted Ulster by including her in the first place with the Irish Free State. I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman has doubly insulted Ulster by saying that it was decided to consider, when conferring with Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith, that they represented the people of Ulster as well as of other parts of Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated dissent.

Captain CRAIG: I took the words down, "Decided to consider them as representatives of all Ireland." I should like the Committee to remember that, when the right hon. Gentleman was sitting in conference with those representatives of Sinn Fein, there was actually in Ulster a Cabinet, a Parliament, which had been set up by the Prime Minister and the House of Commons only a few months before. I am only sorry that when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking the House had not three times the number of Members in it, for if any hon. Member had been put up to destroy any confidence which this House had in this Treaty he could not have done it better than the right hon. Gentleman. It is a most amazing state of affairs, and until he made that amazing explanation why the matter was treated in the way it has been treated there has been no sort of explanation given to the House. It is absolutely wrong to say the matter has been discussed time after time. He almost went as far as to say the House was sick of hearing about it. This question why Northern Ireland is included in the Free State, though we are given the right to vote ourselves out again, was only dealt by one Minister, and it was
dealt with in this way. I pointed out that this was a most unfair and outrageous thing to do, and the answer I got was, "Have you not the right to vote yourselves out of it, and, if so, what have you to complain about?" That is the only explanation which has been given since the matter first came before the House, and that is not a good explanation.
We should never have been put into this position. I hope the House will take up the right hon. Gentleman's challenge. He has tried to frighten the House with threats of the death of the Treaty. I do not want to kill the Treaty. I and all my colleagues want to see peace in Ireland. We realise that things have gone so far that it is quite impossible that the Treaty in its main principles should not be carried out, but I differ absolutely, and I ask the Committee to differ, from the right hon. Gentleman's argument that if you change one word or one comma in this Treaty it is necessarily dead. That is not the proper view to take of it. I maintain that if hon. Members find that on a further acquaintance with the facts of the case they have acted wrongly, and have done what they know they ought not to have done, they have every right in honour and in equity to try to put the mistakes they have made on a former occasion right by voting for this Amendment.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The speech of the Colonial Secretary is not only not a justification for his conduct, as I think, but it is a most grave aggravation of his former offence. How do we stand? We find in this Bill a positively false statement, an absolute falsity, the statement that the Agreement was made with the whole of Ireland, whereas, in fact, everyone in the House knows that it was made with delegates from a portion of Southern Ireland, and when he is asked to explain why he put this definitely false statement into the Bill he makes an explanation which must have come with perfect astonishment upon us all. He tells us that he and his colleagues felt themselves entitled to regard Mr. Michael Collins and his coadjutors as representing the whole of Ireland. Who outside a lunatic asylum could have made such a statement? Where was any representative body in Northern Ireland who appointed Mr. Collins? Did the Parliament of
Northern Ireland appoint him and his associates to negotiate this Agreement? Did anyone in Northern Ireland even profess to appoint Mr. Collins to negotiate it? Can the right hon. Gentleman mention one single person or body of authority who would say that Mr. Michael Collins and those who acted with him represent Northern Ireland, and if he cannot what is the excuse for him and his friends in the Government to regard these gentlemen as though they did represent Northern Ireland?
I wish there were more of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues here. I wish we had the Lord President of the Council. Would he tell us that he regarded Mr. Michael Collins as the representative of Northern Ireland? I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for someone besides himself when he says that. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some reason for this astounding belief of his that Mr. Michael Collins and his friends represent Northern Ireland. Like hon. Members from Ulster and elsewhere, we have no desire at this moment to kill this agreement. Things have gone too far. I recognise that the Government is bound to put it through. But really if the Colonial Secretary tells us that to make the Bill conform with the bare fact, to eliminate the falsehood which we are now complaining of and to put in the truth is to kill the Bill, he is telling us something which I find it perfectly impossible to believe.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I should like to say two words after the speech of the Colonial Secretary. He charged me with unnecessarily importing heat into the Debate. I plead guilty. I think I did. I can only say that if I did it was because some of us feel a degree of indignation which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman finds it very difficult to understand. I do not think even now he understands its cause, because he said I was merely speaking wild charges about dishonour and so forth which have been answered a hundred times, and he declined to take them literally. But he must take them literally. If he says he will not, I would reply to him, "Litera scripta manet." There has been a distinct breach of faith—a breach of a written promise. Is that or is it not something definite? And as he told the Committee that those charges have been
answered time after time I would very respectfully ask him to refresh my memory as to what the answer is. I have heard no answer. The Prime Minister never answered it. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered it. They have answered other things, but I have noticed that they have always carefully avoided having to answer that, and when the right hon. Gentleman says—and this is the nearest approach to an answer that any of then! have got—that the House by an enormous majority endorsed the action of the Government, I do not believe the House has endorsed the dishonour of the Government. What the House of Commons did by its Division was to endorse the general policy of the Government. I do not believe, they ever sanctioned or approved the methods by which it was carried out. Those charges remain there on the Paper and the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have not answered and cannot answer any of them.

Lord H. CECIL: The Government, I think, do not even now quite appreciate the seriousness of the accusation which is brought against them, not only as affecting their credit generally but as going to the root of the question whether their policy is likely to be a success. We are not really dealing here with the Treaty itself. We are dealing with the description of it. The Clause runs—
The Articles of Agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland"—?—
and the point is raised that that is a misdescription. I do not know whether the Colonial Secretary concedes that it is a misdescription or denies it. It manifestly is a misdescription, because Northern Ireland was no party to the agreement and indeed from the first openly and notoriously refused its consent to an agreement. Then what is the purpose of the misdescription? The very startling speech the Colonial Secretary has just delivered almost suggests that the Government did after all, in some degree, mean to commit Ireland against its will to this Treaty. They accepted the persons with whom they were negotiating as the representatives of the Irish nation. Of course it is possible for them to say, and perhaps it may be true, that in the sense that the Irish nation was used by those negotiators the people of Northern Ireland did not belong to the Irish nation
but I do not imagine that that would be an acceptable view to the negotiators themselves. When you say you are accepting these people as the negotiators for the Irish nation you mean that you are accepting them as persons who were in some sense morally entitled to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland. What else does the right hon. Gentleman mean?
The real truth is that the Government has got into the habit of using words which they hope will have a conciliatory influence, absolutely careless whether they have any correspondence with truth or not. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman attached any meaning whatever to the expression he used with so much rhetorical fervour. I do not think ho knows or cares what the expression "Irish nation" may mean. He thought it would have a soothing influence on the other side of St. George's Channel since the Government are now sitting stewing hi their own juice with anxiety lest, after all they have been through, their coadjutors on the other side should turn them over and they should be left with a derelict Treaty to sell for what it will fetch in the English constituencies. They are so anxious that they used this sort of rhetorical language, and they will not modify the Treaty, because the Amendment will not modify the Treaty but the description of the Treaty that they have put into the Bill, because they do not know what effect it will have. Surely you cannot hope to pacify Ireland, you cannot hope to settle the Irish question at all, if you really rely upon giving misdescriptions of facts which are intended to take someone in. There are two alternative defences to this misdescription. Either they meant to commit Ulster against its will, and that deserves all the language my hon. Friend has used about it, because it would be a scandalous breach of faith to Northern Ireland, or else they are using phrases which are not intended to mean what they say but are intended to operate soothingly upon the minds of the people of Southern Ireland, and so carry their Treaty there upon what is essentially a false pretence. One way or the other, someone is being taken in. If you use language which is a misdescription there cannot be an honest purpose behind it. You must be taking someone in—either the Southern Irish or you are confessing to a breach of faith which you have already committed
against Northern Ireland. No honest purpose can be served by using language of this kind. To defend it is only to try to cover over what is essentially a discreditable manœuvre, and I hope the Government will not cherish the idea that you can in the end solve a great question by arts of this character. It is not by chicanery and artifice, it is by honest, straightforward dealing that great questions are solved, and for that reason, as we know the Treaty cannot be killed, we earnestly wish the Government were as dead as mutton.

7.0 P.M.

Sir W. DAVISON: It would indeed have been well for the Colonial Secretary and for the Government if they had been wise enough to flout the desires of the House and to keep silent rather than that he should have given vent to the amazing speech we have heard, a speech which attacked the democratic institutions of this country and of the British Empire. The right hon. Gentleman got up in this British House of Commons, the parent of democracies throughout the world, and said that when he was negotiating with the Irish delegates of Sinn Fein from Southern Ireland he considered himself, and apparently he implied that his other colleagues considered, that he was negotiating with representatives of Ireland as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government, and this House of Parliament had only a few months before set up an independent Parliament for Northern Ireland, no representative of which had been summoned to that Conference or had attended it. For him to say that this conference of delegates, not even appointed by Southern Ireland, represented Ireland as a whole, when there was a duly constituted Government in Northern Ireland set up by the present Government, is, I say, an outrage on democratic institutions. We are told that this does not infringe the rights of Ulster, and the Leader of this House said in the last Debate that Ulster remains mistress of her own fate. How then, if that is a fact, can it be said that this is a Treaty made with Ireland? You cannot have it both ways. It is either a Treaty made with Southern Ireland, or with Ireland as a whole; one or other is untrue. The House last night applauded warmly the Chancellor
of the Exchequer when he said, referring to the Agreement entered into by the Government with the teachers:
It is quite certain that any Government which took part in, what could fairly be regarded as the breaking of a contract or a breach of faith would set an example in this country which would be attended by serious consequences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1922; col. 432, Vol. 151.]
Yet that is just what the Government have done in this matter, and I say that what the Colonial Secretary has said to-night is an outrage on democratic institutions, on Parliament, and that if words mean anything, before it is too late let us put the words of truth in this Bill.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I would not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for what I regard as the perfectly amazing explanation of the Colonial Secretary. He has just informed us that he regarded Mr. Michael Collins, Mr. Griffith, and the rest of the delegation as entitled to speak for Northern as well as Southern Ireland. I absolutely challenge the right hon. Gentleman. Do I understand him to say he did not? I thought I understood him to say that he regarded them as representatives of Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did," and "The whole of Ireland."]
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Treaty proceeds on the assumption that, the Irish signatories represented Ireland as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?" and "It is untrue."] I say that is the assumption on which the Treaty proceeds. There are the signatories of the Treaty, which is described as a treaty between this country and Ireland. That is the assumption and the basic assumption, and it is perfectly well-known and obvious.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me this? Which of the Irish delegates were in any way able to speak for Northern Ireland? Were they even enabled to speak for any of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who sit below me?

Mr. DEVLIN: For me.

Viscount CURZON: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman below me accepts Mr. Michael Collins as in a position to speak for him. I do not believe, and nothing will make me believe, that His Majesty's Government for a minute imagine that any one of these delegates
could speak for Northern Ireland or for all Ireland. I am perfectly certain they did not, and therefore I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman's explanation this afternoon. He has further stated that the Government will not accept a single Amendment, and that if we want to amend—

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I did not.

Viscount CURZON: Well, any Amendment of material effect on the Treaty. Is there a single Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman can point on the Paper which was designed to wreck that Treaty in any way? Those of us who are working together in this desire to help the Government to try to make this into a workable and honest Measure. I regard this Treaty as an accomplished fact which we have to see through. Whatever body were in power would have to do the same to-morrow; but we want it made into an honest and statesmanlike Measure. There is also another consideration which has not been touched upon. If the Government will not accept any Amendment, or will not even consider them, what is the effect on the country outside? Only the other night I was endeavouring to address a meeting—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is getting somewhat far away from the Amendment.

Mr. DEVLIN: He did not say he was addressing a meeting; he only said he was endeavouring to do so.

Viscount CURZON: I wanted to show how very much I resent the Government's attitude if they will not accept any reasonable Amendment to this Treaty. I do not regard the addition of the word "Southern" as a word that is to wreck the Treaty, and I cannot believe that Mr. Collins would so consider it. All we want to do is to say exactly what we mean and to see that the Treaty says it. That is all we want to see done. I am sorry the Government have said in passing that they will not accept any Amendment of any sort, because I think it will have a very bad effect outside, and that many people will question the usefulness of our Parliamentary institutions.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I cannot follow His Majesty's Government when they say they cannot accept one Amendment. It
is not going into the Treaty; it is only going into the Bill. It is merely stating what is the fact. What is the use of the Colonial Secretary telling us that they went on that assumption on that particular night? He might as well go on the assumption that two and two shall make five, or that the law of gravity shall temporarily be repealed. I think he must have felt rather like that that night at half-past two in the morning. It is no use making an assumption which is nonsensical. Sinn Fein delegates knew, and the representatives of His Majesty's Government knew perfectly, well, that the North of Ireland was not represented by the Sinn Fein delegates. There was no use their making believe like a couple of infants out of "Alice in Wonderland" that they did represent Northern Ireland when they did not. What is the use of it? I have great sympathy with the Colonial Secretary. He knows perfectly well that the majority in the Dail is very small, and that the South is in a very anarchical condition—

Mr. DEVLIN: So is Scotland.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And he very properly wants to assist such ordered government as there is there, and not to do anything likely to prejudice the grip of these gentlemen who signed this Treaty for the South of Ireland and who pretend to represent the whole of it. We want to assist them, and I have great sympathy with that point of view too. I would like to help the South all I could for law and order to be established. Let us do everything we possibly can, but when it comes to the North, I know well enough that these wretched Clauses dealing with the North, which have been put into the Treaty, instead of making it a treaty of peace may very likely make it an occasion of civil war. It is a deplorable thing to think that the delegates and the Cabinet did not sit up all night and the following day and agree to take these wretched Clauses out, because it is contrary to the whole spirit of the Treaty, which is that the British Government shall not interfere. I cannot help thinking that the reason of that assumption was that at the back of the mind of the representatives of the Government there was a determination to apply to Ulster all the coercion they dared. One cannot help recollecting that, in March, 1914, if the forces of the Crown had assisted certain of the gentlemen sitting on that
Bench, including the Colonial Secretary, military coercion would have been used, and it was only the fact that the instrument broke in their hands that prevented it. There is still the same spirit at the back, and they will coerce Ulster if they possibly can. I do not believe Sinn Fein itself is thinking seriously of coercing Ulster. She knows it is practically impossible. I wish for peace in the South of Ireland and in the North of Ireland, and the true way to get peace between these two sections—mark you, it has always been admitted that there are two nations in Ireland—

Captain REDMOND: Who has admitted it?

Mr. MOLES: The Prime Minister did.

Captain REDMOND: I am an Irishman, and he is not.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: They may not be two nations in the sense of two nationalities, but if nationality means race, they undoubtedly are two. The two races do not agree, and have not agreed for thousands of years.

Mr. DEVLIN: You do pretty well in Scotland.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, we do wonderfully well in Scotland. There is more philosophy. The fallacy of this Treaty is that the facts have not been recognised. I believe that if the dangers of their Treaty, of the Boundary Clause, which had no right to be in, had been pointed out to Sinn Fein, and if they had been appealed to, they would have taken these things out. I hope it is not too late yet. I do not accept from the Colonial Secretary that putting the word "Southern" in this Bill can possibly nullify, set aside, or kill the Treaty. They may kill it because they recognise that it will not be the Treaty they thought it was going to be. It is all very well to get pæans of praise from all parts of the world. It is like a man who gets married and sends wires to his relatives informing them of the fact. Of course, he will get congratulations, but when it is discovered that he has taken a lunatic, or something of that sort, as his bride, he probably will not get the same hearty congratula-
tions. This Treaty, with its contentious Clauses, will bring trouble instead of bringing the olive branch and peace to Ireland and a permanent settlement of this centuries-old dispute.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I have not spoken on the Irish Bill because I knew that once the Government had signed this Agreement protest or antagonism to the Bill was useless, and that this House would have to ratify the Treaty. Having entered into the contract the Government could not possibly get out of it. But this Amendment shows what an absolute sham the whole of the so-called settlement in Ireland is. The Government did not consult Ulster when the Treaty was signed. Instead of calling it a Treaty with Southern Ireland, it is going to be called a Treaty with Ireland, although the North will have nothing to do with it, and a great proportion of the South will have nothing to do with it. Why do you wish to fraud this House into something which does not exist and something which is entirely untrue? I do not see the need for it. Though we protest, this Bill will have to pass; but what is the need for trying to perpetuate a fraud upon the House. I do not see how that is going to benefit the Government or the country at large. Why not say that this is a Treaty with Southern Ireland? I do not see that that will in any way affect Sinn Fein or Mr. Collins in his attempt to win the South of Ireland; but, at any rate, it would show the whole world exactly how the position stands.
The representatives of Ulster in this House have a right to protest. When the War came, in 1914, there was no part of the country that rallied to the forces in greater numbers than Ulster, and Ulster has a right to protest that when this Treaty was signed the representatives of Ulster were never consulted. They had a right to be consulted. If you are going to call it a Treaty for the whole of Ireland you will bring up the whole question of why Ulster was not consulted. No one would complain if you called it a Treaty with Southern Ireland, because the North in that case would have nothing to do with the Treaty. On this matter I think the Leader of the House ought to be present. Since I have been sitting here there has not been a single Conservative Cabinet Minister present. It is only right that, at any rate, one Conservative Cabinet Minister or the Leader of the
House should be present and give us his opinion on this most important point, and advise us whether he thinks it possible for the Government to withdraw.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would appeal to the Committee to come to a conclusion on this Amendment now. We have had a long and searching Debate; the issues have been fully explored, and there are many other important matters to be dealt with. I am very reluctant to press the Committee, but I think it would be proper to bring the Debate to a termination now.

Sir H. NIELD: That appeal might very well take the form of a motion, "That the question be now put." I have been asking myself why we are invited to attend. We are told that we can do nothing by our Amendment. This Amendment has been explained again and again as one that will not affect the Treaty in the least, but will only restore the Bill to a truthful statement of the facts; but it has been resisted, and we have been threatened that those who dare to go into the Lobby and vote for the Amendment are voting deliberately to wreck the Treaty. I hope that there will be no journal circulating in the United Kingdom to-morrow that does not make it perfectly clear that that threat has been held out, and that we are told that the House of Comomns, with its century of history behind it as the bulwark of the freedom of the people of this Realm, is not to be allowed to open its mouth, or to introduce a comma, or a full stop, much less a semi-colon. What is the function of this House reduced to? This Agreement has been openly repudiated on the other side as having been pure coercion, and it is going to be repudiated, if anything ever was repudiated, ultimately, and yet we are told that we are not to be allowed to alter it in the slightest degree. The Whips ought to have announced that the House would be summoned and that after Questions it would proceed to consider this Bill, and that thereupon the Closure would be moved. It is a monstrous infraction of the rights of the people of this country. This Amendment is being resisted upon excuses which are absolutely futile and childish, and it is an insult to the House of Commons to attempt to dragoon it in this way. Far better adjourn and save our time.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: I only intervene because of the statement that was made by the Colonial Secretary that the delegates represented Ireland as a whole. Some hon. Members have expressed amazement when he made such a statement. I do not express any amazement that such an expression has come from the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the history of his peculiar acrobatic performances in connection with the Irish Question: but I am entitled to express the greatest astonishment and amazement if the leader of the Conservative party, the Leader of this House, the leader of the Unionist party, understood when he was entering into these negotiations with the Irish delegates that they did really represent Ireland as a whole. The Unionist party in this House are entitled to ask that question, and they are entitled to get an answer. If they did think, as the Colonial Secretary has told us, that these gentlemen represented Ireland as a whole, does the right hon. Gentleman think so now? He may have thought it as an individual at that time, but he cannot possibly think now that those gentlemen represented Ireland as a whole, because a Vote has been taken in the Dail with the result that the Treaty was only carried by a very small majority. Far from representing Ireland as a whole, they do not even represent Southern Ireland.
When this Treaty was signed in the early hours of the morning, telegrams were sent all over the world, and we are entitled to ask whether the telegrams were to the effect that this was a settlement of the Irish Question between Irishmen who represented Ireland as a whole and the Government. I believe that a telegram was sent from Washington by the Lord President of the Council congratulating the Prime Minister on having carried this thing through. This Committee is entitled to know whether the Lord President of the Council understood when he sent that congratulatory message that the Act which established the Parliament of Northern Ireland was being abrogated by this Treaty. If he had known, what kind of telegram would he have sent? This Debate goes to prove that the Government in entering into this Treaty have done so at the expense of those who have stood by the Empire ever since we have had any knowledge of it. It is a horrible thing for us when we who have
stood to England and stood to the Empire in time of trial and great responsibility are now to be told that we are no longer wanted, and we are to be thrown over to our enemies. I hope the Committee will not listen to the right hon. Gentleman when he threatens them with the loss of

this Treaty and the death of the Government, We only hope that such things may happen as a result of such a Treaty.

Question put, "That the word 'Southern' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 254.

Division No. 24.
AYES.
[7.27 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Allen, Lieut..-Col. Sir William James
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Nield, Sir Herbert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Gretton, Colonel John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart, (Gr'nw'h)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Polson, Sir Thomas A.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)
Reid, D. D.


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Remnant, Sir James


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Brassey, H. L. C.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Brown, Major D. C.
James, Lieut..-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stewart, Gershom


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Jellett, William Morgan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Butcher, Sir John George
Larmor, Sir Joseph
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Lindsay, William Arthur
Whitla, Sir William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Lynn, R. J.
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
M'Connell, Thomas Edward
Windsor, Viscount


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
M'Guffin, Samuel
Wolmer, Viscount


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maddocks, Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Moles, Thomas
Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Penne-


Donald, Thompson
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
father.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Clay, Lieut..-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Coats, Sir Stuart
Hallwood, Augustine


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hallas, Eldred


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Halls, Walter


Armitage, Robert
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hambro, Angus Valdemar


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hancock, John George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Barlow, Sir Montague
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Haslam, Lewis


Barnston, Major Harry
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hayday, Arthur


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Devlin, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Doyle, N. Grattan
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hinds, John


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Fildes, Henry
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Bigland, Alfred
Finney, Samuel
Hogge, James Myles


Birchall, J. Dearman
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Borwick, Major G. O.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Foot, Isaac
Holmes, J. Stanley


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Howard, Major S. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Hudson, R. M.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Forrest, Walter
Hunter-Weston, Lieut..-Gen. Sir A. G.


Briggs, Harold
Galbraith, Samuel
Hurd, Percy A.


Brittain, sir Harry
Gange, E. Stanley
Hurst, Lieut..-Colonel Gerald B.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gardner, Ernest
Irving, Dan


Bromfield, William
Gee, Captain Robert
Jackson, Lieut..-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Jephcott, A. R,


Buchanan, Lieut..-Colonel A. L. H.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Jesson, C.


Buckley, Lieut..-Colonel A.
Gilils, William
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Gilmour, Lieut..-Colonel Sir John
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Cairns, John
Glyn, Major Ralph
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Campion, Lieut..-Colonel W. R.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Johnstone, Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Carr, W. Theodore
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Kennedy, Thomas


Casey, T. W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Kenyon, Barnet


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Kiley, James Daniel


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Guinness, Lieut..-Col. Hon. W. E.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Lloyd, George Butler
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.
Sugden, W. H.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sutherland, Sir William


Lorden, John William
Purchase, H. G.
Sutton, John Edward


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Taylor, J.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Panrith)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Lunn, William
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Renwick, Sir George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Tickler, Thomas George


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Robertson, John
Tillett, Benjamin


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Magnus, Sir Philip
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wallace, J.


Middlebrook, Sir William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Moison, Major John Elsdale
Royce, William Stapleton
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waring, Major Walter


Morris, Richard
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Murchison, C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Myers, Thomas
Seager, sir William
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Seddon, J. A.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Neal, Arthur
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Sexton, James
Wintringham, Margaret


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Hon. Alex, (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Frederick


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


O'Connor, Thomas P.
Simm, M. T.
Worsfold, T. Cato


O'Grady, Captain James
Sitch, Charles H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Parker, James
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Spencer, George A.



Perkins, Walter Frank
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Phillipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Stanton, Charles Butt
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Starkey, Captain John Ralph
Dudley Ward.

The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Pennefather) and of the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) are covered by the discussion which has already taken place.
The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Lieut. -Colonel A. Murray)—in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" to insert the words
after the constitution to be framed under the aforesaid Articles has been discussed and ratified by both Houses of Parliament"—
is, I think, nugatory. There is no necessity for its being introduced here.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: On this Amendment, may I submit that its effect would be to ensure that the Constitution should be confirmed—that not only should it have the assent of the Executive Government, but that it should also have the assent of Parliament before it has the force of law. There is an Amendment further down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) which substitutes the words "Appointed day" for the words "date of the passing of this Act," which would meet my case.

The CHAIRMAN: We can deal with that Amendment when it is reached. It seems to me that this Amendment is unnecessary for the reasons I have given. Alternatively, it would mean that the Constitution should be given the effect of law. You cannot give the effect of law to provisions which are not yet drafted.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Surely Parliament is entitled to hold its hand with regard to this until it sees the Constitution of Ireland? Is it not in order, apart from the merits, to propose that we should see the Constitution of Ireland before we pass this Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: That really means the suspension of the whole Bill, on the argument that we have to wait for the Constitution. It would not be in order.

Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "date of the passing of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "appointed day."
This is an Amendment which even the Colonial Secretary cannot say is going to wreck the Bill. It is very important in
matters of this kind, where there are so many details to be dealt with that there should be some elasticity as to date. Circumstances have already proved that such elasticity is necessary because the other signatories to the Treaty have been allowed to alter it, although we are not permitted to do so. If this Bill had been passed, and this change of front on the part of Michael Collins and his followers had taken place, then nothing would happen, whereas my Amendment would enable the Government to change their tactics. The formula I have adopted is the usual one. It is to be found in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and it is a formula always used in circumstances of this kind. As I should think the right hon. Gentleman will accept my Amendment, I will not occupy the time of the Committee further.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The adoption of this Amendment would have a dilatory effect on the voting on this Measure. We are giving effect here to the Treaty, and it is essential we should do so in order that the Irish people may be convinced of our determination and resolution to go through with it, and in order that those who in Ireland are combating the Republican movement, and endeavouring to rally the Irish people to the basis of the Irish Free State, should be armed and equipped with the assurance that this Parliament and country are determined to make good the work their representatives have undertaken on their behalf. The importance of doing this renders it impossible for me to accept this Amendment.

Viscount WOLMER: I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman should think it worth while to come down to this. House at all, seeing that every Amendment brought forward with the object of modifying the Bill in the slightest degree is met with a blunt negative from the Government Benches. As a matter of fact, the whole thing has been fixed up behind the scenes, and we are merely asked as a matter of form to say "ditto" to what the Government have arranged with other parties. Incidentally, this House has to lend itself to putting into an Act of Parliament all the shams and camouflage of this Agreement. This Amendment has not, in my opinion, been adequately dealt with by the Colonial Secretary. Everyone knows that the
state of affairs in Ireland is continually trembling in the balance. The Government themselves last week had very grave doubts whether we ought to proceed with this Bill at all. Are we to pass this Bill when there is not the slightest guarantee as to what the situation will be in Ireland a fortnight hence? The effect of this Amendment would be simply this. After the Bill had been passed the Articles of Agreement would have the force of law on a day which the Government themselves may decide to be appropriate. That is a very reasonable and sensible suggestion.
The Government has not the slightest idea what the situation in Ireland may be three weeks hence, and, if this Amendment be not carried, directly the Bill is through they will have started the ball rolling down hill and they will have lost control of the situation altogether. The ball that will be rolling down hill is a Treaty made apparently between one Sovereign State and another, and consequently it is a Treaty from which either can withdraw if it desires to do so. It is essential that the Government should not lose control of the situation until the last possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think he can effect a solution of the Irish question by a series of make-believes, and by putting into an Act of Parliament things which do not exist. He thinks the mere passage of a measure which everybody knows to be false, quite foreign to the realities of the situation, will bring about the remedy he desires. But I would ask the Committee to look at the facts of the case.
It is a very dangerous thing indeed that we should lose control of the situation. We have got the Sinn Feiners divided into two nearly equal camps. A month or six weeks ago those who agreed to this Agreement were in a slight majority. Obviously the other side has been gaining strength rapidly in the interval. We have had evidence during the last few days that in a very short time, for all we know, the party which desires to repudiate this Treaty may be in the ascendency. That may happen at any moment; in fact it is not only possible, it is probable. The whole history of Ireland is that the extremist, the man who has made the most extreme bid, has been able to secure popular sympathy. Ireland never has been, and never will be the place for moderate men. We see a
reflection of that in this House. Therefore, when you have got the whole state of things in Ireland in a turmoil, in a flux, when you have secured an agreement to this document by every means of eye-wash and camouflage at your disposal, calling that a treaty which is not a treaty, pretending that it represents the whole nation of Ireland when it does not, calling a thing a settlement, which never can be and never will be a settlement—in spite of using these words you have only been able to secure a narrow majority in the Sinn Fein Parliament itself in favour of these proposals. When you see in the course of a very few weeks that that majority has so far declined that they have been forced to make an agreement with their bitter opponents, which must in the end turn to their great political disadvantage, practically ensuring their ultimate defeat at the Irish elections, whenever they take place—I say when you have a situation like that in front of you, it is nothing short of sheer madness not to keep such control as you can by legislation on the situation until the very last moment.
What necessity is there that all the Clauses of this Agreement should have the force of law immediately this Bill is passed? The only Clause in the Agreement that needs to be put into operation at once to satisfy the requirements that have been demanded from the Treasury Bench is Article 17, or, if you like, Article 12 and Article 17. These are the Articles that are necessary for the establishment of the Provisional Government and for the delimitation of the Boundary. There are strong reasons why these two things should be undertaken directly this Bill is passed, but there is no reason that I can see why the rest of the Articles of Agreement should of necessity come into force directly this Bill is passed.
For instance, take Article 1. Article 1 lays it down that Ireland should have the same status as the Dominion of Canada, Is there any reason why that should take place immediately after the passing of this Bill? Would it not be much wiser to defer the date on which the fundamental change takes place until after the constitution has been drawn up and approved, or some other pact as great, which would enable us to know
exactly the sort of people we have to deal with in Ireland? It would be much better to delay a fundamental change of that sort until you are absolutely sure of what you are doing.
Then there is the question of the oath. What need is there that this oath should be legalised and have the force of law immediately after the passing of this Bill? Again, this is a matter which would not be necessary until the permanent Parliament of the Irish nation has been set up. It is not demanded in the case of the Provisional Government, which will carry on under Article 17 of the Agreement. You do not want Article 4 to have operation until you have got the whole of this Irish Free State in thoroughgoing and working order. All we are asking for is that the day on which this great fundamental change takes place shall be selected by the Government, acting with the full knowledge of their responsibility in the matter, as the most opportune and wisest, not leaving it to the moment when this Bill happens to pass into law.
I suppose the right hon. Gentleman who answered my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), and who has now left the Committee, might reply that the Government have already fixed the appointed day, and that in their view the appointed day is the day when this Bill becomes law. But in this, as in other matters, we are anxious to save the Government from themselves. We desire to rescue them from that web of camouflage and make-believe, and phantasy, with which they seem content to surround themselves. We cannot be a party to a decision which would leave all those powers to come automatically into force at a perfectly fortuitous date, dependent entirely upon proceedings in another place, and we suggest that the date should be selected by His Majesty's Government in their discretion and on their responsibility.
Let me take Article 7. Article 7 deals with the harbour facilities and other points of safety. There is absolutely nothing in Article 7 to necessitate its coming into force the moment this Bill is passed. That is certainly an Article which might well be postponed until the ultimate and last phase has been reached. In fact, I am inclined to think—

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is going to repeat the same argument on each of the 18 Articles of the Agreement, it will occupy a considerable time.

Viscount WOLMER: I am entitled to show there is nothing in this Article which necessitates it having the force of law immediately after the passing of this Bill. Article 17 is in a different position, for it is dealt with by Sub-section (2). In regard to all the other Articles, I am entitled to show there is no reason why they should have the force of law on the day of the passing of this Bill. It is a very germane point. I do not think this House ought to swallow the biscuit without munching it. We have to look and see what we are to swallow, and the idea which seems to prevail in high quarters now, that the function of this House is merely to accept the dictation of the Prime Minister, is one which I desire to protest against with the greatest emphasis. It is not, apparently, sufficient for the Prime Minister that the party politicians should bind themselves, hand-and-foot, to his dictation; he wants the House of Commons, as a body corporate, to do the same. In deference to what you say, I do not propose to go through all these Clauses. I will only take one or two of them which deal with judges, officials, and members of police forces. There is absolutely no reason why Article 10 should have the force of law, whatever that extraordinary phrase means. I have not yet heard a definition of what the phrase means. There is no reason why Article 10 should have the force of law immediately on the passing of this Act.
There is another point that I would like to put to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that is this: All these Articles—take Article 10, for instance—are drafted in the loosest and the vaguest and most misleading phraseology. We can quite understand it when we hear the circumstances under which they were drafted, at 2 o'clock or half-past 2 o'clock in the morning, by a politician who wanted to square the circle and perform the impossible. But to say that these are to have the force of law on a date when nobody here knows what that date may be, but which will automatically come without the Government being able to control it—to say that Articles so vaguely, so
loosely, so misleadingly drafted, using the words in a sense which are differently interpreted by different parties, and which I venture to suggest were intended to be interpreted differently by different parties—to say that words of that sort should have the force of law appears to me to be the height of impolicy and of madness.
Let me take Article 16, which deals with the endowment of religion. That is a very momentous Article which people of this country will want to watch very carefully indeed. There is no conceivable reason why Article 16 should acquire the force of law automatically immediately on the passing of this Act. It is one of these questions which want most careful watching, most careful scrutiny, before it is decided that it should come into force. I wish to protest, finally, against the whole spirit of the Government in the way they are treating the House of Commons. They are shovelling this Government at us wholesale. They demand that we should swallow it.

The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

8.0 P.M.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry you interrupted me, because I was just coming to the conclusion of my remarks, and in response to your previous invitation I refrained from explaining how our Amendment holds good with regard to many other Articles besides those which I have mentioned. I conclude with a protest against the way in which the Government ask us to take all this agreement en bloc, and refuse to make any distinction with regard to the relative importance of one paragraph or another, and refuse to accept the alteration of a syllable or a comma in their blessed Bill.

Lord H. CECIL: I do not agree either with the contention of the Government that this is an important point or that this Amendment is one that should be resisted because is would injure the effect of the Treaty in Ireland. This is a proposal to substitute an appointed day for the date of the passing of this Act. The Colonial Secretary has said over and over again that by the adoption of the Treaty last December, and by reading this Measure a second time, the Government and the majority of this House are deeply pledged to the Treaty, and it is said that in order to reassure opinion in Ireland it should come into force at the passing of
this Act. The whole question, therefore, becomes one of convenience of machinery. My Noble Friend who spoke last argued, and it seemed quite unanswerable, that there was no convenience of machinery in bringing it into force on the date of the passing of the Act. Every word of his speech seemed to be perfectly in order, and it was a valuable contribution to the proceedings of the Committee. It was directed to show that all these paragraphs of the agreement cannot have useful operation, and many cannot have operation at all, "in force of law"—whatever that may mean—at the passing of the Act. It is, therefore, natural that it should be left to the discretion of the Government, who presumably have some purpose in using the words they have used, to decide at what point the legal enforcement of each successive paragraph becomes useful for the purpose they have in view.
I cannot conceive why the Government should not accept that. It surely provides the more convenient machinery, of the two methods, and as to the moral effect, on this subject, at any rate, our hands are free, because precisely the same thing has been done in Ireland, but for a different reason. The Irish negotiators have deferred their part for three months. They have altered, not the date of the Treaty, but the date on which they are to enter upon the steps necessary to carry out the Treaty. Why should we not reserve a discretion to do precisely the same thing, and bring the Treaty, paragraph by paragraph, into effect on whatever day it may be found convenient to appoint? The Government do not seem to desire even to consider any Amendments which are in any way contrary to their purpose, and they have shown no desire to conciliate, in any degree, opposition in the House. They seem to have come down with the resolve to accept no Amendments except those which they have been constrained to put into the Bill by the action which they have themselves taken in Ireland. These are the only Amendments that are to be made. This Amendment, like every other, is to be rejected, because the Government have adopted a verbal inspiration, and no word is to be altered, not only in the Treaty, but in the parts of the Bill which are to carry the Treaty into effect. I hope the
Government, even now, will see the reasonable and convenient character of the Amendment before the Committee, and how entirely it concurs with the position they have themselves taken up.

Colonel Sir J. GRE1G: I do not think the two Noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment can really know what it means. They cannot have read the consequential Amendments to which it is introductory. If they will turn to page 29 they will find the Amendments which must follow on this if it is carried. One is to this effect:
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert: —
'(2) the appointed day shall be such day as His Majesty by Order in Council shall prescribe, and different days may be prescribed for different purposes under this Act.' 
That is not very determinate. Assuming that a General Election were to take place, and another Government were to come in, as the Noble Lord desires, it would be in the power of that Government to determine the day. Then if hon. Members will turn to page 31 they will see the final consequential Amendment, which is as follows:
Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert:—Before any Order in Council under this Act is submitted to His Majesty in Council, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Imperial Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House, within 21 days on which that. House has sat next after the draft has been laid before it, against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft without prejudice to the making of a new draft.

Lord H. CECIL: That does not really affect this Amendment at all.

Sir J. GREIG: These Amendments are also in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and others.

Lord H. CECIL: All these are not consequential.

Sir J. GREIG: You must define the appointed day.

Lord H. CECIL: This has nothing to do with the present Amendment.

Sir J. GREIG: The effect of these Amendments is to put it in the power of another place to stop the Bill from coming into operation at all. Those who agree with the Government in this matter intend to support the Bill as it stands, with the object of making it definite.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: The speech to which we have just listened reminds me of a sermon which I heard preached on the text, "Ephraim, he hath mixed himself." I think that speech was surely based on a text of that character. I only rise to refer to the delightful logic with which this Bill is drawn. The Amendment before the Committee points that out very distinctly and emphatically. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Articles of Agreement reference is made to the fact that the Northern Parliament can vote itself out within a month. In the first instance, the Bill includes the Northern Parliament automatically. Then the Northern Parliament has the privilege under paragraph 12 of voting itself out, but if the Committee will turn to page 5, paragraph 15, of the Articles of Agreement they will read these words:
At any time after the date hereof the Government of Northern Ireland and the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland hereinafter constituted may meet for the purpose of discussing the provisions," etc.
In the first instance, we are to be part of the all-Ireland Parliament—part of the Irish Free State, so to speak. In the next instance, we have power to vote ourselves out, and then here is a paragraph in which we have actual powers to work as the Northern Parliament. If anything were necessary to illustrate the illogical drafting of this Measure, the different times at which the provisions of the Bill are to act point to that conclusion. The whole position is ridiculous. This Amendment is very pertinent to the question of the time of the operation of the various paragraphs, and it provides an opportunity to bring some logic into this absurd Bill. It gives an opportunity for fixing an appointed day, which would relieve the Measure of some of its present absurdity and which would prevent this House from being led into further absurdity. I hope the Colonial Secretary or the Chief Secretary for Ireland will look into this question thoroughly, and see if they cannot accept the Amendment, so that we may at least have some sense in this ridiculous and nonsensical Bill.

Viscount WOLMER: I only rise to point out to the hon. Member for Renfrew (Sir J. Greig) that he has made a very serious mistake. The Amendment which he spoke about as appearing on page 31 does happen to be in the name of the
hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. R. Gwynne) and myself and other hon. Members, but it has got absolutely nothing to do with the present Amendment.

Sir J. GREIG: Where do you define the appointed day?

Viscount WOLMER: The Amendment on page 29 is a consequential Amendment, but the Amendment on page 31 is on a perfectly different point. It says:
Before any Order in Council under this Act is submitted to His Majesty in Council a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Imperial Parliament—

Sir J. GREIG: That applies to the Order in Council mentioned on the previous page.

Viscount WOLMER: There are other Orders in Council besides the one which we propose. It might be argued if this Amendment were carried, as to whether the Order in Council proposed under this Amendment would be a suitable subject for the procedure suggested in the Amendment on page 31. I assure the hon. Member that is entirely a separate point. If he will look at the Amendment on page 29 I hope it will convince him that what we are proposing is very sensible indeed. It is there explained that different dates may be prescribed for different purposes under the Act, which is to say that the appointed day may be one day for paragraph 1 of the Agreement, and a different day for paragraph 2. I think that is one of the most valuable parts of the suggestion because in the nature of things it may be desirable for certain parts of this Agreement to come into force before other parts.
As the noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has pointed out, the Sinn Feiners themselves have postponed one part of the Agreement. They have not altered the words of the so-called Treaty which is not a Treaty, but as a fact they have altered an essential part of the understanding, so there is no reason at all why the different parts of the Agreement should not be brought in at appropriate times. The idea that the whole bag of tricks should be let loose all together, is neither reasonable nor logical. It is only part of the military despotism of this Government who desire everything to be done at
their word of command. When the Government of Ireland Act of 1914 was placed on the Statute Book, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) laid the greatest possible stress on the importance of its being placed on the Statute Book but not being brought into force until the appointed day. That was the procedure recommended and adopted by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Prime Minister, and the present Secretary for the Colonies, and the present Chief Secretary for Ireland were among the supporters of that Government. They all supported that procedure with regard to Ireland, and they also supported it when it was proposed by the present Prime Minister in connection with the Act of 1920. They again approved of exactly the same procedure when it was, not proposed, but carried out or decided upon, by the Sinn Feiners, without any consultation or reference to those right hon. Gentlemen at all. They had to accept the decision of Mr. Collins and Mr. de Valera coming together. Therefore three times in the last few years a policy has been followed in regard to Ireland of certain Measures being given the force of law, as a matter of principle being placed on the Statute Book, but not being carried out until an appointed day, and the only respect in which this Amendment differs from those proposals is that we propose that certain parts of this Agreement may be brought into force on one day and certain parts on other days. That appears to me to be a distinct improvement on the precedents to which I have alluded, and I hope for these reasons we shall be able to count on the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew and others who, I am sure, must have some sympathy with what we have in view.

Captain CRAIG: I absolutely agree with all that has fallen from my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), and I would point out that not only with regard to the Act of 1914, but also with regard to the Act of 1920, is this system of an appointed day and different appointed days for different Clauses used, and I would go so far as to say that in Bills of this kind, setting up new constitutions, such a method as is now proposed is absolutely necessary. I am quite convinced that if a greater state of chaos could be endured
than already exists in the Free State, it would be due largely to the fact that they tried to bring the whole of the Clauses of this instrument into operation at one time. I think the Committee is fully alive to the fact that the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one, and one which is introduced for the purpose of making the Bill more workable and less ridiculous, but I would suggest to my hon. Friends that, in view of the fact that we have had a Division and that a great number of Members are engaged in other work at the moment, it perhaps might be judicious not to carry this particular Amendment to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There is one question I would like to ask before this Amendment be finally disposed of, and I should like an answer, if it were possible, from the Chief Secretary. In paragraph 11 of the Treaty, as we have decided to call it, the first few words are most important. They are:
Until the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament for the ratification of this instrument,
certain powers are not to apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland within a certain time is to have a right of voting itself out of this Agreement. Now it is most important that we should have an answer explaining whether this Bill is the Act referred to in paragraph 11. I should imagine that that is most important from the point of view of the Northern Parliament themselves, because if this is the Act of ratification referred to in paragraph 11 of the Agreement, then naturally the Northern Parliament must watch very carefully the date of the passing of this Act, in order that they may be sure not to be landed, as it were, into a worse difficulty than they are in at the present moment as to when their rights of exclusion from the Sinn Fein arrangement cease or begin, as the case may be. I have read every word of the Bill two or three times and it certainly gives the Agreement the force of law, but nowhere does it say that it is a Bill "for the ratification of" the Agreement, which are the words used in the Agreement itself. For instance, if the Agreement said in paragraph 11, "Until the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament to give the force of law to this Agreement," then the drafting of the Bill would be perfectly in order and perfectly legal
and proper, but I want to know whether, by not using the terms which are used in the Agreement itself, we are really ratifying the Agreement by this Bill, or whether we are merely for the time being giving authority to the Provisional Government. There are some other peculiar anomalies which follow from this. To whom do the Northern Parliament report their refusal to come under this scheme? Is it to the British Cabinet, or to the Provisional Government? I believe there are words in the Agreement that they must report to the Free State Government that they refuse to come in.

Sir W. ALLEN: It must be addressed to His Majesty, according to paragraph 12.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I have not read it very carefully, but I could not see anything which hon. Members could fasten upon to know what is the date of ratification. This is a Bill to give the force of law to the Agreement, but does that mean ratification as required by the first few words of paragraph 11 of the Agreement? I would like to know that, and I should imagine that those who represent the Northern area in this House of Commons ought certainly to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with that. There ought to be no ambiguity relating to this matter, considering how important their rights are within certain specified dates.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised a question which was very exhaustively dealt with on the Second Reading of the Bill, when it was clearly set out that the date, according to the Treaty, from which the option month should begin to run was not the date of the passing of this particular Bill.

Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman says it was clearly set out on Second Reading. The Treaty is before us. There are a very large number of people who take the view that the date runs from the passing of this Bill, and unless it is settled in the Bill that it dates from some other time, the question is one which can only be settled by a Court of Law.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The question has been the subject of discussion between the Government and the representatives of the Provisional Government. They
came to an agreement, and the Agreement was read to this House on the Second Reading of this Bill on the 16th February. There is no question about it at all.

Mr. REID: Will the right hon. Gentleman put it in a Second Schedule of the Bill?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The statement made on the Second Reading of the Bill stands, and it is clear from it that the month runs as from the date of the Act of the British Parliament recognising the Constitution framed by the Provisional Government, and, therefore, it does not commence to run, as my hon. Friend said it might, from the time of the passing of (his Bill into law. There are two views as to whether this Amendment should be accepted or not. The view of the Noble Lord and those who are associated with him is that the longer they can delay the operation of this Act, the better it is for everybody.

Viscount WOLMER: My right hon. Friend misunderstands me. That is not my position at all. I think if you have made an Agreement, it has, obviously, to be carried out, but our point is, that it is much better to have a day which the Government can choose and select than one which will simply automatically occur when this Bill passes into law, and it is much better that the Government should be able to bring certain portions of this Agreement into force at the most suitable dates.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Noble Lord and his Friends wish to delay the coming into operation of the Articles of the Agreement and of this Bill. That is one point of view. But that is not the Government point of view. The Government point of view is definite and decisive, that this Bill should be passed into law at the earliest possible date, and the earliest possible date is the date of the passing of this Bill. Therefore to suggest any other date is an Amendment that will delay the operation of the Act, and will run contrary to the fixed decision of the Government. Whatever argument the Noble Lord brings forward, it cannot affect the difference between the Government view and his view. We wish to bring the provisions of the Bill into operation at the passing of the Act, and he suggests a subsequent date. There-
fore, we cannot accept this Amendment, because it would be a flat contradiction of the design here, by which we intend to abide.

Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman has laid down an extraordinary proposition. He says that because some statement was made in the course of the Second Reading of this Bill, it has the force of law. Once this Bill is passed, it will have to be interpreted as it stands by lawyers, and the lawyers cannot get up and say that on the Second Reading somebody on the Front Bench said so-and-so. Let us have the thing quite clear and definite now. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend, in regard to paragraph 11, that Ulster has to contract out of this part of it within a month of the passing of this Bill, or at some other time, and, if it is some other time, what is the time? If the right hon. Gentleman wants to contend that it is not within a month of the passing of this Act, then he must insert something in this Bill to say so, otherwise he is creating trouble straight away, by arousing litigation as to who is right or wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has been quite long enough in this House to know that it is the Act on which we have to rely, and that is why we consider the Government at the present time are acting in this Bill in the wrong spirit. We want to avoid trouble, and not create it. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not mind what will happen the next week or month, so long as they get out of the difficulty for the moment.

Mr. REID: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point, absolutely essential to Ulster. He talks of lawyers. I happen to be a lawyer by profession, possibly not a good one, but, such as my experience is, I am prepared to say, in my opinion, the one month dates from the passing of this Bill. I know that is the opinion of some very high legal authorities with whom I have had the opportunity of talking on the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is good, why are we asked to pass this Bill at all? Supposing he leaves the matter in the way he says it ought to be left, and supposing the Northern Parliament does not present an Address to His Majesty within one month after the passing of this Bill, and then supposing, later on, they do present
such an Address, and the Government of the Irish Free State passes an Act extending some taxation to the whole of Ireland, and a man in Northern Ireland refuses to pay, and is sued. What is the answer? The answer is that the jurisdiction of the Free State clearly extends to the whole of Ireland, because an Address to take Northern Ireland out was not passed in due time. That would be the question that would come before the Court, and what the right hon. Gentleman, or the Leader of the House, or the Secretary of State for the Colonies said would not matter two brass buttons to anybody. This is not an alteration of the Treaty over the heads of Sinn Fein. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make this arrangement, let him put it in as a Second Schedule. There is no difficulty at all about the matter. Some Acts run to 10 or 12 Schedules, and even more. Then we shall know where we are. What obviously will have to be done, if this matter is left as it is, is that within a month of this Bill becoming an Act, the Northern Parliament will have to send an Address—

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: You will be stupid if you do not.

Mr. REID: Then, I suppose, at a later date, they will have to send another Address. It seems to me that if this Amendment be adopted, the whole matter can be cleared up, and I really think we have some right to ask that the matter shall be clearly and definitely dealt with now.

Captain CRAIG: I cannot help saying one more word on this point. The right hon. Gentleman puts us in this position He says that he and his colleagues have had another conference with Mr. Collins and his colleagues, and between them they have arranged a declaration under the Agreement that the one month mentioned in the Bill is to run, not from the passing of the Act giving the force of law to this Treaty, but from the date of the Constitution. If that is so it does not very much matter to us when this month runs from, so long as we know what the date is. As soon as we know that the Ulster Parliament will probably vote itself out of the operation of this Bill. I claim that we ought to know it. It is at least courteous to treat us in a fair and ordinary manner and to tell us now definitely when that date will run from. We ask the right
hon. Gentleman particularly to make this point clear. I venture to assert that it could be done with the greatest ease, without altering or affecting or detracting from the Treaty in any shape or form. Yet he refuses to do so. What is the explanation? We cannot help thinking there must be some reason at the back of it, and as we have not got very much satisfaction from the Government in regard to this matter up to date, we are not likely to look upon his refusal very leniently. We think there must be something behind it. Therefore we must take our own course, and so long as they do not make it clear in the Bill, we in Ulster, will still maintain that the ordinary language means what it was intended to mean. Let me read the words to the Committee. Unless it is otherwise provided until
the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament for the ratification of this instrument.
No language could be more plain than that I claim, owing to the refusal which neither I nor anyone on these Benches can understand, that we must—it is quite clear—act upon these words and vote ourselves out immediately after the passing of this Bill. If we were to depend upon the declaration of the Chief Secretary, think what would happen. The Government to which he belongs may be out before that time arrives, and what guarantee have we that the Government succeeding will take the same view about the matter?

HON. MEMBERS: The Labour party may be in office.

Viscount WOLMER: They will give us a Republic.

Mr. ROSE: Ulster will take our word for it.

Captain CRAIG: We have not had your word. We do not know at present what it is.

Mr. ROSE: You will get it.

Captain CRAIG: Let us assume that the Labour party will be in power at the end of six weeks or a couple of months, how are we to know what view their legal advisers are going to take of this matter? Suppose, again, that Mr. de Valera gets the better of Mr. Collins in Ireland, how are we to know what view he will take of the declaration? The right hon.
Gentleman and his colleagues ought to make it clear, if they want us to vote ourselves out immediately on the passing of this Act, and provide for it. I say that is the simple, straightforward, and honest way. If they have an agreed declaration with the Irish Free State it should be incorporated in the Bill so that there may be no doubt on the subject.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: In view of the fact that the elections in Southern Ireland are not to be held for four months and there is nothing to show what the result of the elections will be—certainly nothing in this country—it seems to be that Ulster will be automatically compelled, if these words remain in, to vote themselves out at once. That is going dead against what the Government have always said they desired—to get Ulster into the South. Yet they are actually forcing them out. The matter would not be so complicated except that there is a proviso in paragraph 12 of the Schedule which lays down that one month after the passing of this Act there shall be set up a Boundary Commission, and the result of the elections will largely depend, I think I may say without offence, on the result of the Boundary Commission. You are hampering a united Ireland by keeping these words in. For these reasons I beg the Government to reconsider the matter and to leave the date open by accepting the Amendment and inserting the words "appointed day." This, to my mind, would facilitate matters in the North.

Captain DIXON: I want to raise a practical point in reference to this matter. I am surprised at the Chief Secretary for Ireland having taken up the attitude he has. We now are responsible—and I am speaking as a Minister of the Northern Government—for law and order in Northern Ireland It is utterly impossible for us to attain that object unless we can do away with that state of things which obtains at the present time. The Irish Republican Army claim the right to come into Ulster. We capture men with arms, and directly we have captured them they claim to be soldiers of the Irish Republican Army. We have no means of proving that they are so, and we put them into gaol. They are tried in the ordinary way by our Courts, by Judges who have sat on the Bench there with the Chief Secretary.
When we put them in gaol the Chief Secretary for Ireland knows that directly after he and his Government put pressure upon us to let them out. Considering that the Chief Secretary had two years in trying to govern Ireland and utterly failed, I do think that when we are now trying to govern Ireland so that there shall be peace and happiness amongst all classes and religions, we ought, at any rate, to get some sympathy from him. He knows our difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the vague state that exists in the present wording. He understands that we have no chance whatever under present circumstances of bringing about peace in Ireland. I would, therefore, ask him, as one who realises our difficulties, to meet us in this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
except where the Articles of Agreement stipulate some other date.
I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to find an Amendment moved which does not come under the category which he has described. This is not an Amendment which would wreck or delay the Bill, but it is one which would remove a contradiction. If hon. Members refer to Article 5 of the Agreement, they will see it there stated that
The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the public debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof.
Although as yet there is no date attached to the Schedule, we all know that this Agreement was made on the 6th December, 1921, and in Article 10 of the Agreement again there is a reference to "the date hereof." In Article 17 there are two references to "the date hereof," and yet in Clause 1 of the Bill it says:
The Schedule to this Act shall have the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Act.
The date may be March, 1922, and yet in the Articles of Agreement there are four cases in which it is laid down that certain things are to happen as from the 6th December, 1921. I submit that it is an unfortunate thing that there should be these contradictory things in an Act of Parliament, and I do not see how it can imperil the Bill or cause the death of
the Government, or produce any of the other things which have been spoken of, if it is made clear, by the addition of this small Amendment which I now move, that the Agreement is to have the force of law from the date of the passing of this Act, except where the Articles of Agreement stipulate some other date. I consider that is a most reasonable Amendment, and I fail to see what possible objection there can be to it. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seize this opportunity of accepting at least one Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have been rather puzzled to know what my hon. Friend intended by his Amendment. The Sub-section as it stands proposes that
The Schedule to this Act shall have the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Act.
That does not mean that every Clause or provision will come into operation at that moment, but only when it is appointed that they should come into operation. Take Article 6 about coastal defence as an example. Under the provisions of this Article these matters are to be renewed at a Conference to be held at the expiration of five years from the date hereof. Giving it the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Bill does not alter the time when this Conference is to be held. There are a number of other proceedings which begin as from the dates when it is natural and normal that they should originate. All the sub-section does is to convert what at the present time is an agreement into an Act of Parliament. I do not think my hon. Friend would be well advised to press further an Amendment which I am quite sure is not necessary, and it is one which I cannot accept.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PERCY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided nevertheless that the constitutional status referred to in Article one of the said Articles of Agreement shall not impliedly or otherwise confer upon the Irish Free State the right to secede from its allegiance to the King or to declare itself hereafter an independent nation.
Vital concessions have been made to Ireland as the price of complete and permanent peace. I think it is now for wise statesmanship to ensure as far as human foresight can do that nothing shall come in the way to interrupt
the even flow of that peace in the days to come. We should take care that nothing which ought to be said is left unsaid, or anything which should be written should be left unwritten, in order to make it beyond all possibility of misunderstanding what we are paying and what we are to receive for the payment. I very much fear that there is an important matter which has not been taken notice of either in the Treaty or in the Act, and I shall as briefly as I can explain my point. Under the Treaty it is provided that Ireland shall have the status of what is popularly known as Dominion Home Rule. There are one or two reservations or rather provisoes such as the one that states that she shall take upon herself her fair share of the national debt and that which provides for harbourage for the fleet. But these things do not in the slightest degree affect the constitutional status to be granted which is one of absolute equality with the Dominions of Australia, South Africa and Canada. What does that mean? I do not think I can do better than quote the words of the late Leader of the House on this point. The words I allude to are contained in a speech delivered on 30th March, 1920, in the Debate upon the Home Rule Bill of that year. He was answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who had just declared that so far as he was concerned he was prepared to give Ireland Canadian Dominion Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman answered thus in his reply:
To say that he is in favour of Dominion Home Rule means something much more—
He was referring to the customs at that time—
There is not a man in this House, and least of all my right hon. Friend, who would not admit that the connection of the Dominions with the Empire depends upon themselves. If the self-governing Dominions, Australia, Canada, choose to-morrow to say, 'We will no longer make a part of the British Empire,' we would not try to force them. Dominion Home Rule means the right to decide their own destinies.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am only quoting, I am not arguing the point. I am on the question of what Dominion status means, if hon. Members would do me the favour of giving me their attention to this part of my argument. He went on to say:
See what that means. Through all the Home Rule discussions my right hon. Friend went always on this—'I say that this is
demanded by the legal representatives of the Irish people.' They are just as much the legal representatives now they are Sinn Feiners as they were before. To say, therefore, that he is prepared to give Dominion Home Rule means—and means nothing else—than that he is prepared to give an Irish Republic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1920; col. 1125, Vol. 127.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: Who said that?

Mr. PERCY: I am quoting the words of the late Leader of the House. I will hand the right hon. Gentleman the quotation. I respectfully submit that that is a formal declaration, made on behalf of the Government, recorded for all time, and with the world as a witness, that any nation being given Dominion Home Rule without reservation is entitled to shape its own destinies and to declare itself an independent nation. And I further submit that Ireland, when she has this status conferred upon her would legally and constitutionally, under this Treaty, and under this Bill, as they stand, be entitled to declare herself independent and to set up an independent republic at the doors of Great Britain—at the very heart of the Empire. But that is surely not the intention of the Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. PERCY: Nor is it the intention of the British people. There was, I believe, what was once described as an unfortunate incident, but which, perhaps, might now be characterised as a rather fortunate circumstance and that is the correspondence that took place between Mr. de Valera and the Prime Minister when they were attempting to make a common basis for the conference that was afterwards held. With the permission of the House I will refer to one or two sentences on each side. Mr. de Valera in his first letter raised the very point to which I am now asking the consideration of the House. He said in his letter dated 10th August, 1921:
'Dominion status' for Ireland everyone who understands the conditions knows to he illusory. The freedom which the British Dominions enjoy is not so much the result of legal enactments or of treaties as of the immense distances which separate them from Britain and have made interference by her impracticable. The most explicit guarantees, including the Dominions' acknowledged right to secede, would be necessary to secure for Ireland an equal degree of freedom.
The Prime Minister met that straight and to the point. In his letter of 14th August, 1921, he wrote:
… but we must direct your attention to one point upon which you lay some emphasis and upon which no British Government can compromise, namely, the claim that we should acknowledge the right of Ireland to secede from her allegiance to the King. No such right can ever be acknowledged by us.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!

Mr. PERCY: I submit that there is a fundamental basis, written and understood by both sides, that while the Government were prepared to give to Ireland the status of Canadian Dominion Home Rule, it was with the important reservation that on no account would they concede to her the right, to quote the words of the letter, "to secede from her allegiance to the King" or to become an independent nation. I submit respectfully that this Motion will make matters quite clear and avoid any future misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill (Mr. Churchill) asked us with some emphasis and persistence to face the facts. That is an excellent piece of advice, and it is the more interesting when we consider his somewhat erratic career in his connection with the Irish Question. I think I could prove that, but it would not be quite to the point. All I can do is to face the facts so far as they are strictly relevant to my Amendment. What is the out-standing fact? I am speaking, not of the desirability, but of the necessity of making it perfectly clear how far we are about to go. What is the main outstanding fact? It is to me—and I have followed this question now for more years than I care to count—that for nearly 40 years a great party in the State succeeded in deceiving themselves, and in deceiving a considerable portion of the British public, as to the real intentions of the Irish leaders and of the Irish people; while, on the other side, the Irish leaders never for one moment, from first to last, attempted to deceive anyone. They have never hesitated to disclose what was the ultimate goal for which they were making, and we have for many years seen the extraordinary political picture of loud proclamations on the one side of the union of hearts, while the other side as loudly proclaimed the disunion of the Empire. Just to
follow up that thought in two or three sentences, there can be no mistake as to the attitude and as to the past history with regard to this question. To go back to the early eighties, Mr. Parnell made a declaration, when he was in America, and these were closely his words:
Whether we be in America, or in England, or wherever we may be, we shall never rest satisfied until we have destroyed the last link that binds Ireland to England.
I say that there has never been a responsible Irish leader from that day to this who has not in the spirit, and often in the letter—indeed, usually in the letter—confirmed that declaration. Coming to the present day, Mr. Collins, when the discussion on the Treaty took place in the Dail, was asked a plain, straightforward question, and gave a plain, straightforward answer. He was asked:
Do you say that this Treaty will settle the Irish Question?
and his reply was,
No, I do not.
We know the powerful agitation that is at present going on in Ireland, but we do not know its potentialities. Therefore I submit that this Amendment should, in order to make matters clear and beyond any dispute, beyond any region of quarrel upon that point, be readily accepted by the Government. It does not take one word from or add one word to the Treaty. All that it does is to make clear the written and recorded decision of the parties before this conference began, and, of course, it must be viewed in the light of the solemn declaration of the late Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government. The British people have spoken with no uncertain voice regarding this Treaty. They have, with a spirit chastened by the agonies of the Great War, shown how eager and how anxious they are for a permanent and absolute peace with Ireland. We expect, and we have the right to expect, that Ireland will now grasp the hand of peace that is held out to her, and will join with this nation in establishing an amity that future centuries shall not shake.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend who has just moved this Amendment has delivered, if I may say so, a very well argued speech, and I will do my best to give him the information which he seeks and the reply which his reasoning de-
serves. I should like, at the outset, to ask my hon. Friend whether he considers that this Amendment alters anything in the Treaty?

Mr. PERCY: I have said that it alters nothing in the Treaty, but that it makes the matter perfectly plain beyond dispute.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the Amendment alters nothing in the Treaty, then it is unnecessary.

Mr. PERCY: No. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that, because the document is very vague, therefore it is correct.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Let me confront my hon. Friend with the dilemma. If this Amendment alters nothing in the Treaty, it is unnecessary. If it alters anything in the Treaty, obviously we cannot agree to an alteration in the Treaty.

Mr. MOLES: If it explains something, what then?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If it elucidates or explains, none the less it will be an Amendment of the Treaty, and as such I should not be able to accept it, because we are absolutely tied by the Treaty. I hope that that will be realised. It is not in my power, or in the power of the Government, or of anyone who has put his hand to or given his vote for this Treaty, to alter any jot or tittle of it without agreement with the other party. Of course we could meet the other party and discuss it, and it may be that at some time in the future we may discuss these matters; but we have no power, without their agreement, to alter these conditions in any respect. Let us just see where we stand on this very important point. We rest on Articles 1 and 2 of the Agreement in the Schedule, which accord to Ireland:
The same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.
I do not think we should be well advised to try to define that status more precisely than is done in these Articles. The Imperial Conference which met last year gave the most careful consideration to the whole question of the constitutional relations of the different parts of the British Empire, and they decided unanimously and deliberately that it was a subject
which was much better left alone. They decided that the Constitutional Conference which had been fixed for, I think, next year or the year after, should not take place, because it was not in the general interest of the whole healthily growing combination to introduce grounds of difference or division by trying to prescribe exact and rigid definitions. What the British Empire exhibits more than anything else is the result of freedom of growth. No one has laid down carefully and exactly beforehand the conditions limiting its action. All has been moving forward under the conditions of natural growth. Had anyone attempted to prescribe limits and conditions, there is no doubt that the greatest difficulties would have arisen at every stage.
With regard to the quotations which my hon. Friend very kindly gave to me from the speech of the late Leader of the House I must make an observation. That speech, like everything else which fell from my right hon. Friend the late Leader of the House, was characterised by great ability and coolness of judgment. At the same time, it was a debating speech in relation to a particular current of Parliamentary thought and discussion, and those particular words are not accepted as a pronouncement of the public and constitutional law of the British Empire. We have never admitted, and the great Dominions of the Crown have never claimed the right to secede. If the question were raised, I have no doubt it would be pressed in one direction or the other to a conclusion, but they have never claimed nor have we ever admitted the right of secession. I do not accept that particular statement, which has been referred to as governing the constitutional practice of the British Empire, and I am confident that it would not be so accepted in the great Dominions.
But obviously, is not the question, as far as the Dominions are concerned, much better left to the easy forward movement of unity and comradeship, to good sense, to the avoidance of situations which over and over again have thrown other nations and other powerful organisations into disorder—to these methods which with British common-sense, with give and take, making allowances here and not pushing things to a logical conclusion there, have enabled us, year after year, generation after genera-
tion, to gather together and keep together and carry forward the great structure and fabric of our Imperial inheritance. Obviously such issues will have to be interpreted in relation to the particular set of circumstances which prevail at the time, in relation to the resources and position of this country at the time, in relation to the intentions of its people and its Government at the time, in relation to the degree of opinion expressed on the one side or the other in any of the Dominions concerned, and it is impossible, it would be futile and it would be mischievous to attempt to lay down beforehand a general rule. By good and wise administration, by patient contribution by every party in the State and by each of the succession of Governments which may occupy the place of power, it should be possible to bring the British Empire steadily forward through the next generation in the same manner as it has been brought forward through the extraordinary difficulties of the last generation. I deprecate very much indeed endeavouring exactly to define these matters, and I hope—and this is an effort which we shall certainly make—it will not be a consequence of the Iirsh Free State Agreement that an attemept will be made to give us an exact definition of the Imperial relationships between the great Dominions and this country. I should greatly deprecate it, and as far as the Government have any control over events we shall endeavour to direct discussion into other and different channels. We do not wish the august relations of the British Empire to be defined by any narrow and hard fought out conditions of the Irish Settlement.
As to the question of the Irish settlement, we are not going to have an independent Republic in Ireland. I have said so again and again. And as far as we are concerned, we should never agree to it in any circumstances whatever. What tactics we should employ, what weapons we should use, what machinery we should bring to bear—moral, political, military, economic—whatever it might be that we should do, whatever it was that we thought the best and most convenient, that we should undoubtedly bring to bear on any attempt to set up an independent foreign Republic in Ireland. There is absolutely no question of accommodation
on that subject, none whatever. None can be suggested, and none whatever would be agreed to. The battle has been joined in Ireland on that issue. There is no weakening on that issue by the men with whom we have signed the Treaty. Only this day they have declared in explicit terms, again renewing their declaration to stand by the Treaty, the whole Treaty, and nothing but the Treaty, that they will put this issue to the Irish people with the Constitution so that the Irish people shall choose freely between a Republic and a Free State. That is the basis of the argument I have been addressing to the Committee on various occasions through the course of this afternoon. I have been trying to show that this drama is being fought out in Ireland and that we here are playing our part in that struggle—a struggle which is proceeding over the future of Ireland for her place in the great association of nations forming the British Commonwealth, and for her bright and prosperous future in the world. I do not think we ought to attempt to throw doubt upon the clearness of the Treaty by accepting this Amendment. I do not think we ought to try to put an exact definition into the Treaty at this stage of Dominion relationship. I do not think it is useful or valuable for us to press the matter to definite and precise conclusions. Let it be said that this nation reserves its fullest liberty and right to proceed by all the resources at its disposal against any attempt to establish a Republic in Ireland at any time, and with that I would respectfully ask the Committee to accept my suggestion that the words of the Treaty give us the full assurance that they require, that they will not be improved by definitions, and that we have absolute liberty of action in the event of the circumstances which have been suggested coming to pass.

Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman has given distinguished instances of his ability during those Debates, but I do not think he has ever showed greater dexterity and skill in meeting a very difficult question. We have been groping our way through an imbroglio created by shuffling and emotional action on the part of the Government, and never was imbroglio greater than it is in the case raised by this Amendment. What is the fact? The Government have shown
throughout shiftiness and uncertainty in their political opinions, constant change-fulness and variableness in their enunciation of constitutional principles, and a resolution—the only place where they were resolute—never to permit any clearness of definition in any point whatever regarding this Agreement. They hurried us into it. They certainly must admit that they forgot pledges which they made to Ulster. In the small hours of the morning, excused by the exigencies of the situation, they agreed to things which were absolutely in contravention of other things to which they had previously pledged themselves. Here we are in this Clause and on this Amendment in the very centre of the difficulty. What has been the case? My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment quoted words from the late Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) with regard to the interpretation he placed upon Dominion Home Rule. There can be no doubt as to the clearness of that interpretation by the late Leader of the House, given solemnly and carefully as an exponent of the views of the Government. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that that was not properly warranted by the constitutional position, but that it was rather an unthinking and a slightly rash pronouncement of the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite possible, and, indeed, we all know, that some of our distant Colonies desire that they should be separate, and that it would not be expedient to use any pressure in a contrary direction. That is not the constitutional law, however. They have no right under that law to sever the connection of their own will. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister clearly stated that he had no doubt that Dominion Home Rule, as granted by him, might mean what it meant as declared by his own colleague, the late Leader of the House. Another instance of that shiftiness to which the right hon. Gentleman is unfortunately prone!
Let us look on the other side. What can be weaker, more vacillating, more uncertain, slipshod or slovenly, than the Government's announcement of their constitutional principles, their drafting of grave changes in those constitutional principles, or their manner of embodying those changes in the vaguest words possible on the pretext that they will be
most acceptable to those with them they are dealing? What can be more firm, on the other hand, than the attitude of those who with intentions have proceeded step by step with the resolute determination to realise those intentions—the Sinn Feiners? They have never been in any doubt or uncertainty as to what they meant, and they have known how to take advantage of the slipshod and slovenly action which has characterised His Majesty's Government. What has been the result? By this careless act the nation I contend—and I am sure a great many outside these walls are conscious of the fact—now finds herself to have moved forward in a direction that she never expected to follow, and would never have accepted if she had known that she was likely to be led in that direction. What is the special weakness, uncertainty and doubt about all this? It is said that we have Dominion Home Rule, and I cordially agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be most unfortunate to raise questions dealing with our distant Dominions in connection with this delicate question. But have we Dominion Home Rule in this case exactly as we have it in Canada and Australia? What is the Oath of Allegiance? Is the Oath of Allegiance which you impose in the fourth Clause in the Articles of Agreement the Oath of Allegiance imposed in the Parliaments of the other great Dominions? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I know quite well it is not. We urge that, and the reason of the Government for not agreeing with us is, "Do not let us be too particular about definitions. It will do very well. It really means much the same thing." When we ask, "Then why not adopt the same words?" the reply is, "Because it might raise difficult and troublesome questions, nervous fears, and, above all, because it is contrary to the Treaty that we signed at one o'clock in the morning under the influence of heartfelt emotions, and under the pressure of timidity and fear." You have not adopted the Oath of Allegiance which really gives that allegiance to the King given by the legislatures of the great Dominions. Therefore, you have not a right to say you have the same security here as in the case of the great Dominions.
What really are the facts? Let us examine them. We know very well that although the constitutional point is quite
clear that the great Dominions cannot separate themselves, yet undoubtedly we should not allow them to remain against their will. But is the case here the same? Are you prepared to say that the dangers of the separation of Ireland are not greater than those of Canada, and that we -can allow the same independence of State to Ireland as we do to Canada? I am sorry to say—and I think others will bear me out—that I have heard talk in this House and outside that says, "Well, after all, why not let them have a Republic?" I would ask whether many have not heard that opinion expressed in quarters where I did not expect to find them. I regard any utterance of an opinion of that sort as the most cynical form that politics could take. It is a paradox that for the moment it seems smart to utter, "Let them have a Republic," but what does it mean? It means either that a Republic established in Ireland would result in Ireland making herself so ill-governed and so unfit to govern that the country would collapse of its own weight, a result that would be worse than anything one can imagine, or the cynical think that this Republic will be very successful, and that it will be backed up by great alliances abroad. That is to say, we are prepared to see a menace not only to the whole of the Empire but to Great Britain on her own shores as well. The right hon. Gentleman tells us in words perfervid and heartfelt that never with his consent will an Irish Republic be established. Surely we have a right to ask for some grounds for his belief, that under this constitution he will be able to prevent it? Is it not asking to take rather a hard step those of us who used to call ourselves Unionists, who are represented by leaders of our party who used to call themselves Unionists, and who resent any assertion on our part of adherence to those creeds which were once their own as well as ours, but which are now ours alone. Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that we may demand some grounds for the strength of his assertion that he is able to resist an Irish Republic within sight of our own shores, an Irish Republic which will either lead to collapse in Ireland or if prosperous will be prosperous by great alliances with European Powers constituting a menace to our shores? I do urge the right hon. Gentleman to see whether
in some way or other we could not get words in the Act which would deal with the eventuality which he says will not occur, but which we think is not only possible but even encouraged by this Bill.

Mr. R. McNEILL: The Colonial Secretary paid a well-deserved tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment. He called it a well-argued speech. What was the argument of my hon. Friend? It was an argument to show that conceivably under this Bill the view might be taken by a future Government in Ireland that they were entitled to secede, and although he quite rightly said that that right did not appear in the Bill, there should be a declaratory Clause put in to make it quite clear that that right did not exist. Dealing with that argument, the right hon. Gentleman thought it sufficient to place my hon. Friend on what he called the horns of a dilemma, and one horn of that dilemma was that if his argument was correct, and if it involved any alteration of the Treaty, the Government were powerless in the matter. What an awful confession that is. Suppose for a moment that by an oversight the right of secession is found to exist in this legislation, the representative of the Government says to this House: "Even if that is so; even if we have by inadvertence allowed such a terrible thing as that to get into our Bill, we cannot alter it, neither can you." If that really is the position taken up by the Government—I do not say this for the purpose of refuting the position of the right hon. Gentleman—if it is true, it is the most terrible indictment the House could possible bring against the procedure which the Government have adopted.
I am in entire agreement with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he deprecated reducing the usage and the constitutional understanding, which is now elastic or fluid, into the precise definition of some legal form. He took that view as being desirable for the Empire as a whole, and I think he mentioned that the Imperial Conference had taken that view, and had deprecated very strongly anything in the nature of a precise definition of our Constitution in regard to the British Empire as it has hitherto existed. I do not think that anybody would, or ought to, quarrel with that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but we have to face facts. It is one of
the most glorious facts of our Empire that, as has been proved over and over again, all the great Dominions of the Crown overseas are characterised by intense loyalty to the Crown and Empire; but we are now going to create a new Dominion, which even the right hon. Gentleman in his wildest flight of optimistic imagination, in which he excels, could not say is characterised by intense loyalty either to the Crown or the Empire. Therefore, you are going to introduce a new feature. Although it is perfectly true that there is no danger whatever, so far as we can see, of any attempt at secession on the part of any of the Dominions which have hitherto constituted the British Empire, no one can say that there is no danger as regards Ireland, when she gets the power that would enable her to do it.
I would quote against the right hon. Gentleman the words of a rising Imperial statesman who takes a very different view from his, and he is a statesman whose opinion at this present moment it is very important to bear in mind. I refer to Mr. Michael Collins. Mr. Collins entirely disagrees with the Colonial Secretary in all that he said about precise definition. Mr. Collins desires to have a definition of the constitutional position of the country as precise as it can possibly be made. He declared two days after the Treaty was signed that the dissatisfaction of Ireland with any sort of control by or even connection with this country was likely to be very much worse than in the Dominions. He said:
As full-grown children the Colonies"—
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this, but it is not material to my argument—
are restive under the appearance of parental restraint, though willing to cooperate with the parent on an equal footing in regard to family matters.
He then proceeds to deal with the position of Ireland, and his opinion is of some value in regard to Ireland, however much it may have been wrong in regard to the Dominions. He said:
Ireland as a separate nation would naturally be more restive under any control of a neighbouring nation, and the only association satisfactory to all concerned would be based not on the present technical legal status of the Dominions but on the real position which they claim and have in fact secured.
What does he mean by that? The definite legal status is that they have no right
to secede, but the real status as distinguished from the legal status is, as everybody knows, that if they at any time desire to secede we shall not interfere with them. We are perfectly agreed on that. If not, let me put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Commonwealth of Australia or the Dominion of Canada decided to-morrow that they were going to secede from the British Empire, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that we would send our Fleet to prevent them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I deprecate such questions being asked at this time. If, for instance, a situation arose where there was a great division of opinion among the people, possibly equally balanced, then very difficult questions would arise, and I am not prepared to pronounce upon them.

Mr. McNEILL: Of course, I could imagine circumstances which might raise very serious questions, but that is not the point I am putting. I am putting the point that if one of the Dominions at any time decided that it was to their advantage to secede from the British Empire, I do not think that any serious statesman, least of all the right hon. Gentleman, would argue that we should forcibly prevent them, by sending either our Army or our Navy. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman deprecates the raising of these points. I regret it. But it is not we who have made it necessary. The Government have raised these very difficult and dangerous points, and it is impossible that the Government should come here and present this legislation to the House, which necessarily raises these points, and then seek to prevent us from bringing them up, however material they may be to the legislation before us, on the ground that they deprecate such matters being raised in the House of Commons. I quite recognise the danger, and I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's feelings, but it is his fault and not ours. Let me point out further what Michael Collins says. I have already shown he is not content with a legal status; he wants to have a recognised status, and he says:
In the interests of the Associated States it is essential that the present de facto position (the right to secede) should be recognised de jure with all its implications as to sovereignty and allegiance, and the con-
stitutional independence of the Government should be acknowledged.
That is exactly the thing the right hon. Gentleman was deprecating so strongly from the Box in front of him. He said it would be disastrous to the Empire if these matters were pressed to a precise definition. I agree with him, but he has in that the misfortune to disagree strongly with Michael Collins. When we are discussing this matter as it applies to Ireland, there is no one whose opinion is more worth having than that of Michael Collins. Consequently, I think the whole of the interesting and eloquent arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were entirely thrown away, when we turn our attention from the present Dominions of the Crown to which this argument applies to the new Dominions to which it certainly does not apply. There is one admission I feel bound to make in conclusion, and that is, I do not think the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend would ever be of any real practical value. The Colonial Secretary cheers that, but I do not know whether he will agree with me in my reasons for thinking so. My reason for saying it is perfectly valueless is because if Michael Collins, or his Government, or those associated with him, at any time choose to declare their independence, if they are going to secede they will not be deterred by the Amendment of my hon. Friend should it be put into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by a very emphatic assertion that under no circumstances will he or the Government ever consent to an independent Republic being set up in Ireland. In my opinion, there is practically an independent Republic functioning in Ireland now, and I have not the smallest doubt that before many years—it may be months—have passed it will be definitely accepted that an independent Republic will be recognised by the Government here. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will be a Member of that Government. I hope not. I entirely accept the sincerity of his declaration of hostility to such a policy, and I do not believe, with all the bad things I know about him, he is capable of such a change.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not claim any virtues superior to those possessed by the rest of my colleagues.

Mr. McNEILL: But I cannot extend my sympathy so far as to embrace the
right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, because not many months since I heard the head of the Government making just as brave and emphatic an assertion that he would never consent to a policy such as is embodied in this Treaty. I heard the Prime Minister not many months ago argue with his invincible eloquence and persuasion that to give Dominion Home Rule with complete freedom as to taxation and Customs to Ireland was absolutely impossible. I believed that then, but I cannot go on believing it. I do not happen to have the quotations with me, or I would read them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have not given complete Dominion Home Rule. There are special reservations contained in this Treaty.

Mr. McNEILL: You have given the Treaty which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said not many months ago he would never give, and when I remember that fact I cannot attach face value to the right hon. Gentleman's declarations when he tells us that never, never, never in any circumstances or conditions is he going to accept an Irish Republic. That is one of the reasons why I do not attach much value to my hon. Friend's Amendment. At the same time I think the arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to resist it are very weak.

Captain COOTE: I wish to say one word to those who have adopted the attitude to-day of suggesting they have no desire to wreck the Bill and who have then proceeded to make speeches in favour of Amendments every one of which, if adopted, would wreck it. I think it is only fair to the Irish people and to those who are endeavouring to carry out this Treaty in Ireland to-day to leave them in no doubt in their own minds that the English people, whatever the degree of their support and with whatever fervour they have supported the line the Government have now adopted, would nevertheless never accept the setting up of an independent Republic in Ireland. If anyone in Ireland, if de Valera and his followers, think that they have beaten the English people in this struggle, they have made a very great mistake. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite are so apprehensive of the dangers that will result from this Treaty, let them wait until those dangers materialise, then
they may have more right to speak in the vein they have adopted to-day. With regard to this particular Amendment, I agree with the last speaker (Mr. McNeill) when he says it really has no relation to reality. As I said at the beginning, I believe if the party of Mr. Michael Collins joined the party of Mr. de Valera in asserting and maintaining their right to set up in Ireland an independent Republic with all its appurtenances, the people of this country so far from lying down would inevitably resist it and fight against it with all the strength at their command. I am not so apprehensive as the hon. Member is of the attitude of the Irish people. It is incredible to me that anyobdy should fail to see how hopeless it is for a purely agricultural country like Ireland, next door to a big industrial country like England, to have a separate economic existence. That being so, we have no right to suppose that everybody in Ireland is so blind to common sense that they will rush away when they get the advantage of this Treaty to exploit life and advance along an avenue which will lead them to greater independence but to great economic servitude. In the Debate to-day a great body of opinion has been hostile to the general policy of the Government, but the main issue is still as clear to-day as when this Treaty was first published to the world. We have made an arrangement with the people in Ireland who professed to be willing to work with this country to establish a new order of things in Ireland. We have to give them a chance.
We have given them our word to give them a chance to fulfil the letter and the spirit of their bond. If they do not fulfil it, there will be nobody more ready in this House than myself to readjust his view of the situation to the events which will then take place. "Readjust" is not a very good word, and I imagine there is a good deal of readjusting going on in the minds of several hon. Members at this moment. That being so, I think that hon. Members would be ill-advised if, for the sake of past prejudices, or if they see in this Treaty fears which have not been yet realised, they use their great powers of eloquence and persuasion, and their great powers of appeal, to defeat an arrangement which, whatever its value, and whatever its difficulty, does
offer a hope for a better state of relations between Ireland and this country than has existed hitherto.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I make an appeal to the Committee? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I venture to appeal to the Committee, in view of the next Amendment coming on relating to boundary questions, that they should bring to an end this very academic discussion.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not for a moment follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) in saying that this is a wrecking Amendment. What is the meaning of it? It means this. You are entitled to explain the word of a contract entered into between two parties if you do not materially alter the sense of it. If you merely express what both sides of the contract mean then it is not wrecking the Treaty. What the hon. Member means when he says it is a wrecking Amendment is this, that if you put the words of this Amendment in the Treaty not a single one of these men would have signed the Treaty. That is the reason why the Government are opposing it. I voted against the Treaty because I believe it is a thoroughly bad Treaty. But once having entered into the Treaty, it is the business of the Government to get it through as best as they can. I have not voted against the Government, and I do not intend to do so upon matters which deal with the Treaty, still less do I intend to vote against them on this Amendment. But what a terrible reflection upon this Treaty we have heard. The hon. Member who spoke from the back Benches with enthusiasm for the Treaty immediately say that this Amendment will wreck the Treaty. It is a terrible reflection upon the whole thing. The right hon. Gentleman has told us in Debate that he would not tolerate a republic. It came upon me frankly as a surprise.
Let us deal with this fact from the point of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. You have a right hon. Member, a Leader of the House, making a statement in Debate that he would not grant Dominion Home Rule to Ireland because Dominion Home Rule gave the right of secession. When he made that statement he was Leader of the House, and he was dealing with a very important Bill, and I can tell
the Committee that that speech had an effect upon votes. It is rarely that speeches in this House have that effect, but different people told me that the reason they voted for the Government that evening was because of the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that they would not grant Dominion Home Rule.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said that. What I said was that this statement was made in the course of Debate, and that it was to be judged in relation to the Debate. For my hon. and learned Friend to state that I suggested that the late Leader of this House (Mr. Bonar Law) made an insincere statement for the purpose of misleading the House is really unworthy of his high legal and intellectual eminence.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Of course I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But I understood him to say that. Either it was made for the purpose of influencing the House or it was not. It has never been contradicted in any subsequent Debate, although the words have been quoted often enough. It has never been contradicted, or any doubt thrown upon its accuracy until to-night. When it was made the Debate was a very important one, and dealt with the question very apposite, namely, what Dominion Home Rule meant, and whether it could possibly be granted to Ireland. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division, but I certainly shall not vote for it. This is only another illustration of the unsatisfactory nature of an agreement the two parties to which meant something totally different, when they agreed. I only hope that each did not know perfectly well that something else was meant.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) used an argument which I. have heard used for the last 30 years by hon. Members supporting Home Rule Bills in this House. He said if certain things were allowed he would vote against such a Bill. Those things have always been allowed, and yet the hon. Members in question have always eaten their words and voted contrary to what they said. I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Member will do exactly the same sort of
thing. I have no doubt he will have to do it within three or four months, if this Government remain in office. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the actual words of the Colonial Secretary. Speaking a little time ago, the Colonial Secretary prepared the ground for conceding a Republic to Ireland. This Amendment says:
Provided nevertheless that the constitutional status referred to in Clause one of the said Articles of Agreement shall not impliedly or otherwise confer upon the Irish Free State the right to secede from its allegiance to the King or to declare itself hereafter an independent nation.
That is a perfectly clear and simple Amendment the terms of which have been agreed to by all the Members of the Government over and over again, but yet when they are asked to put into the Treaty words which define what they say they intended to carry out, they refuse to do so, and on what ground? I took down the words of the Colonial Secretary. He said first—in contradiction to what he said just now—that Article 1 of the Treaty conferred the same status upon the Irish Free State, as it did upon the various Dominions. He went on to say that the constitution of the Dominions had better be left alone, and that if any question arose with regard to that constitution, as relates to this Amendment—that is to say, as to whether or not the Dominions should have the right to secede from allegiance to the King and declare themselves independent nations—any discussion on such matters had better be left over. He said there was going to be some meeting of the Dominions in a year or two's time and that what we should do if that situation arose, depended upon our resources and upon the circumstances of the time. I venture to say that he is preparing the ground for accepting a Republic. We shall be told we have not got any army, that the navy has been reduced, that the finances of the country are in an uncertain state, that we cannot bear further taxation, and therefore that the best thing we can do is to agree to a Republic. If Mr. de Valera had been in the House I am sure he would have cheered the Colonial Secretary.
Now we come to the second part of the Colonial Secretary's statement, and if the hon. Baronet the Member for Maldon (Sir F. Flannery), who always gets up at an opportune moment to support the
Government, whatever they say or do, had been in the House, he would have cheered the last part of the Colonial Secretary's statement. Having said, first of all, that we had conferred the same status on Ireland as we had conceded to the various Dominions, and that any interference with the Dominions, if they should secede or forfeit their allegiance, would be a matter of our resources and circumstances at the time, he went on to say, in regard to Ireland, nothing would induce us to grant a Republic in that country. You cannot reconcile those two statements, and with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill), I venture to say the Colonial Secretary could not mean the two to be reconciled. He wanted to be able to say at a later date, "Oh, on Thursday, the 2nd of March, I said that we should not interfere with the Dominions if they were to do certain things, but that it would depend on our resources and circumstances at the time, therefore, we are not running away from anything we said." As certain as I am standing here, that is what is going to take place. Before the hon. and gallant Member for Ely makes quite certain what he will do, or what the supporters of the Government will do, I recommend him to read the history of the various Home Rule Bills. I did not sec the 1886 Home Rule Bill, but I saw the 1893 Home Rule Bill, and I should not be in the least surprised, if I were to look back to the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date, I would find my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) saying "all we want is to manage our own local affairs in our own way."

Captain REDMOND: Why did you not give it to us?

Mr. DEVLIN: You would not let us in, now we are pushing you out.

Sir F. BANBURY: I quite realise that my remarks may be distasteful to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. DEVLIN: Not at all. We are delighted to hear you.

Sir F. BANBURY: If hon. Members will allow me to continue, I was about to point out that after such a speech as I have indicated, then a day or two afterwards we would have a speech from a relative of the hon. and gallant Member for Water ford (Captain Redmond) in America saying that what they intended was complete secession from England. Then the Radical party said: "We only want to give a modified gas find water Home Rule Bill."

Captain REDMOND: Why did you not give it?

Sir F. BANBURY: Because at that time the country was governed by sensible people.

Mr. DEVLIN: At what date was that?

Captain REDMOND: They brought you where you are to-day—these sensible people.

Sir F. BANBURY: I would point out to the Committee the seriousness of this Amendment and ask how can anybody vote against it. How can the hon. and gallant Member for Ely vote against it? He says he is going to fight until the last drop of blood and the last farthing against the establishment of a republic in Ireland. All we are asking is to put that into the Treaty—to state clearly what the hon. and gallant Member says ho is in favour of. The hon. Member is a gallant soldier and in the habit of saying what he means. If he votes against this Amendment he is saying he is in favour of a republic being granted to Ireland.

Captain COOTE: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member cannot say that black is white. I sincerely trust that Members of the Committee who have heard the Debate will vote for the Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 57.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[10.16 p.m


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Armitage, Robert
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tyner
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Barlow, Sir Montague


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Barnett, Major Richard W.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barnston, Major Harry


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hailwood, Augustine
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hancock, John George
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bigland, Alfred
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Purchase, H. G.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hartshorn, Vernon
Ramsden, G. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Haslam, Lewis
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hayday, Arthur
Remer, J. R.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Renwick, Sir George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend.


Briggs, Harold
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bromfield, William
Hinds, John
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hogge, James Myles
Rose, Frank H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rothschild, Lionel de


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Cape, Thomas
Howard, Major S. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hudson, R. M.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Carr, W. Theodore
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Carter. W. (Nottingham, Mansfield
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. sir A. G.
Scott. A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Casey, T. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Seager, Sir William


Cautley, Henry Strother
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Seddon, J. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Irving, Dan
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sexton, James


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Spencer, George A


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, Thomas
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Klley, James Daniel
Sugden, W. H.


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sutherland, Sir William


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sutton, John Edward


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Taylor, J.


Ednam, Viscount
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lunn, William
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Fildes, Henry
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Vickers, Douglas


Finney, Samuel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wallace, J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Walters. Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Middlebrook, Sir William
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Forrest, Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernop H.
Waring, Major Walter


Galbraith, Samuel
Morris, Richard
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Gangs, E. Stanley
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Gardner, Ernest
Murchison, C. K.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Gillis, William
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Windsor, Viscount


Gould, James C.
Neal, Arthur
Wise, Frederick


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L (Ripon)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Parker, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
 Perkins, Walter Frank
Dudley Ward.


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Phillipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Craig. Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Brown, Major D. C.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cecil, Rt. Hon Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Donald, Thompson
Lynn, R. J.
Reid, D. D.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
M'Connell, Thomas Edward
Robertson, John


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gretton, Colonel John
Maddocks, Henry
Stewart, Gershom


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Moles, Thomas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Whitla, Sir William


Hayward, Evan
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Hood, Sir Joseph
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wolmer, Viscount


Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Oman, sir Charles William C.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Jellett, William Morgan
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh



Larmor, Sir Joseph
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lindsay, William Arthur
Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Mr. C. Percy and Sir W. Davison.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 250.

Division No. 26]
AYES.
[10.27 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W. D'by)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Archer-Shee, Lieut-Colonel Martin
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hood, Sir Joseph
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Polson, Sir Thomas A.


Brown, Major D. C.
Jellett, William Morgan
Reid, D. D.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Butcher, Sir John George
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stewart, Gershom


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lynn, R. J.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Whitla, Sir William


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Dixon, Captain Herbert
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Donald, Thompson
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)



Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maddocks, Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moles, Thomas
Mr. C. Percy and Sir W. Davison.


Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gillis, William


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Glyn, Major Ralph


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Gould, James C.


Amery, Leopold C. M.S.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Graham, D. M (Lanark, Hamilton)


Armitage, Robert
Coats, Sir Stuart
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Colfox, Major Wm Phillips
Groen, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Devlin, Joseph
Hallwood, Augustine


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hancock, John George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Edgar, Clifford B.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Bigland, Alfred
Edge, Captain Sir William
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Ednam, Viscount
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hartshorn, Vernon


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Haslam, Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hayday, Arthur


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Hayward, Evan


Breese, Major Charles E.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Briggs, Harold
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Flides, Henry
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bromfield, William
Finney, Samuel
Hinds, John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Hogge, James Myles


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Foot, Isaac
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Cairns, John
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Holmes, J. Stanley


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Forrest, Walter
Home, Edgar (Surrey. Guildford)


Cape, Thomas
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Howard, Major S. G.


Carr, W. Theodore
Galbraith, Samuel
Hudson, R. M.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Gange, E. Stanley
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Casey, T. W.
Gardner, Ernest
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.


Cautley Henry Strother
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Hurd, Percy A.


Irving, Dan
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Spencer, George A.


Jephcott, A. R.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
O'Grady, Captain James
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parker, James
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel.


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sugden, W. H.


Johnstone, Joseph
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sutherland, Sir William


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sutton, John Edward


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Taylor, J.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kennedy, Thomas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Kenyon, Barnet
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, L.)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Purchase, H. G.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Lewis, Rt. Hon, J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Ramsden, G. T.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Lloyd, George Butler
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Vickers, Douglas


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Wallace, J.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Remer, J. R.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Renwick, Sir George
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Waring, Major Walter


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Robertson, John
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Rose, Frank H.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rothschild, Lionel de
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Williams, Col. P, (Middlesbrough, E.)


Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Royce, William Stapleton
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Middlebrook, Sir William
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor, Viscount


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wintringham, Margaret


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wise, Frederick


Morris, Richard
Seager, Sir William
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Seddon, J. A.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Murchison, C. K.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Sexton, James
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Myers, Thomas
Shortt, Rt. Han. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Sitch, Charles H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Neal, Arthur
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Dudley Ward.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Lord H. CECIL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided that for the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the British Government, in consenting to and Parliament in approving Article 12 of the said Agreement, did not intend to agree to the transfer of the main area of any of the six counties of Northern Ireland to the territory of the Irish Free State, but only to such minor adjustments (if any) in the boundary between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, either in the one direction or the other, as might without economic injury either to Northern Ireland or the Irish Free State satisfy the desires of bodies of persons of homogeneous opinions in respect to their territorial situation.
It is rather disheartening to rise to move an Amendment, because the Colonial Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill, said at an earlier period of the Debate, in language which seemed to be somehow reminiscent of the memorable passage in the Book of Daniel on the sackbut, psaltery and all kinds of music, that he could accept nothing which would qualify, amplify or diminish the terms of the Treaty. He used his very large
vocabulary to insist upon his naturally un conciliatory disposition, and therefore it is rather disheartening to rise to suggest that this Amendment is quite consistent with the declarations of the Government and does not impinge on the sanctity of the Treaty. This is an ambitious proposal, because I have endeavoured to put into clear words what the Government mean. As they always fail to do that, it is perhaps presumptious to suppose that I shall succeed, but there is no doubt that this represents as nearly as I can express it what the utterances of the Government are. The Prime Minister, for example, used these words, and as they were not only uttered by the Prime Minister but had the advantage of being quoted also by the Attorney-General they have a kind of double sanction:
What we propose I think is wise for Ulster, namely, that you should have a readjustment of boundaries, not for the six counties but a readjustment of the boundaries of the North of Ireland which would take into account where there are homogeneous populations of the same kind as
that which is in Ulster and where there are homogeneous populations of the same kind as you have in the South. If you get a homogeneous area you must, however, take into account geographical and economic considerations.
Then he gives illustrations and goes on:
You must have regard to economic considerations as well; but taking into account all these considerations, I believe it is in the interest of Ulster that she should have people who will work with her and cooperate with her, and help her along, and not make difficulties, not merely inside her boundaries, but difficulties with her neighbours as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1921; cols. 40–41, Vol. 149.]
That, of course, occurs in the course of the speech, and I have endeavoured to follow those words as nearly as one can in putting them into an Amendment, and I carefully avoid amending the Treaty, because I know how fidgety the Government are about that. The language does not affect the Treaty, it affects merely the intentions of the Government or the British delegates (or whatever they were called) who sat in Downing Street, and also, of course, there was the intention of Parliament in approving Article 12 of the said Agreement:
Provided that for the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the British Government, in consenting to and Parliament in approving Article 12 of the said Agreement, did not intend to agree to the transfer of the main area of any of the six counties of Northern Ireland to the territory of the Irish Free State, but only to such minor adjustments (if any) in the boundary between Northern Ireland and the Irish Tree State, either in the one direction or the other, as might without economic injury either to Northern Ireland or the Irish Free State satisfy the desires of bodies of persons of homogeneous opinions in respect to their territorial situation.
That precisely conforms to what the Government have assured us is their meaning, and it does not modify the Treaty. It declares the intentions of the Government and of Parliament in assenting to the Treaty. Undoubtedly, where you have an ambiguous formula, the intention of the signatories begins to be important. If you use perfectly clear language no authority interpreting it would have regard to what was the intention of the signatories; the authority would be bound by the language, so far as the language could go; but if the language is ambigous, if it may equally well mean one thing or another, then the interpreting authority must have resort—there is no other way—to the intention
of the signatories. My proposal is that in this Measure we should be clear as to what is the intention of the signatories on the one side of the Treaty. That will afford the Commissioners guidance in coming to their interpretation. If you do not give them guidance, there really is no ground upon which they can arrive at any interpretation in particular, because the language is so ambiguous an-d so vague that it is equally consistent with any interpretation. It says:
Provided that if such an address is so presented a Commission consisting of three persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State, one to be appointed by the Government of Northern Ireland, and one, who shall be Chairman, to be appointed by the British Government, shall determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, and for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of this instrument, the boundary of Northern Ireland shall be such as may be determined by such Commission.
"In accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants" may, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, mean almost anything. It depends upon in what area you take the wishes of the inhabitants, and also upon whether you mean the unanimous opinion, or whether there is to be a preponderating majority, or a bare majority. It is as ambiguous an impression as can possibly be used. The expression "geographic conditions," too, does not really mean what it says. It cannot be supposed to be really geographic conditions that is meant; it is the social considerations that arise out of the geographic position. Altogether, I defy any tribunal, however intelligent and however impartial, to interpret the language merely in the light of the language. That is impossible. If you cannot interpret the language merely in the light of the language, you must have regard to the intentions of the signatories. We ought to declare what our intentions are, and the other side ought to declare their intentions in a similar document. To the best of my ability I have put into this Amendment precisely what the Government told us were their intentions, and what, as I think, were beyond all doubt the intentions of the two Houses of Parliament in accepting the Treaty. We should, in my Amendment, say what we mean, and that is an honest,
straightforward, and natural course. I wish I could think that on those grounds it would be acceptable to the Government, but I am sure that to do what is honest, straightforward and natural would be repugnant to the deepest instincts of their nature, and therefore I have not much hope. Nevertheless, I put it forward, and I think the Government will find that if they continue to reject all suggestions which will clear up their position on this question, people will increasingly think that they really do desire to trick Ulster, and that, after all their assurances, they will prove false at the last.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Lord has delivered a characteristic speech, characteristic in its brilliancy and sterile ingenuity which we have been accustomed to wonder at increasingly as the years pass by, and characteristic also of that monopoly of honesty which appears to be a family and fraternal perquisite, and I shall endeavour to submit reasons why it is impossible for the Government to defer to appeals, or to the assaults—for they partook more of that nature than of appeals—of the Noble Lord. The legal effect of the Amendment, I am advised, would be to interpolate into Article 12 of the agreement certain conditions to govern the action of the Boundary Commission. I must repeat that we cannot possibly agree to such a course. I am well aware, everyone in this House is aware, of the extraordinary gravity and embarrassment of this boundary question. I have never concealed the feeling I have as to the difficult position in which we have all been placed by the way in which this matter now lies. Only a little while ago this matter lay in a much better situation. An agreement had been actually signed between the Prime Minister of the Northern Government and the Chairman of the Provisional Government for a settlement of these matters by friendly, practical agreement between the two Governments concerned. Since then we have had a severe set back. One speech on one side has led to a speech on the other and then forays and disorderly action have been set on foot from the southern side of the border which have undoubtedly produced a temporary cessation of those relations which were so happily inaugurated a month or six weeks ago. I am power-
less, the Government is powerless, to alter or modify or restrict or interrupt the conditions laid down in the Treaty. As the tree fell so must it lie. The Noble Lord allowed his pent-up mirth to gush forth. I do not see why, after all these high moral declarations about the dishonesty of the great majority of the human race, which is so repugnant to him, and the great majority of this House, which so horrifies him, he should regard the sanctity of treaties as a matter for loud derision. A definite agreement has been made.

Mr. GWYNNE: What about the agreement with Ulster?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am speaking of this particular Treaty, and I say in regard to it that, convenient or inconvenient, we who have signed it with the representatives of what is now another Parliament, and will soon be another State, are absolutely bound. We cannot possibly insert provisions which would have the effect of modifying the articles. I look forward to a resumption of negotiations, and I hope that will not be the last-word on the subject. As I have pointed out, there is no immediate urgency. Time will be given before any official decision on this matter must be taken by the parties concerned, and before the Boundary Commission, which is the ultimate court of appeal, is brought into existence. When the elections have been held in Southern Ireland one of two things must happen. Either a verdict will have been given adverse to the Treaty and in favour of a Republican form of Government—in which case the whole of this matter falls to the ground and all parties resume their original freedom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, we resume our full freedom on the basis of the respect and sympathy of the whole of the civilised world. Either that will happen, or the Free State Government will be accepted by the people of Southern Ireland. If that is definitely accepted and a new Parliament has come into existence pledged to that, I am certain that the relations between Northern and Southern Ireland may enter upon a far better period and condition than has been possible up to the present time.
I say now, as I said on the Second Eeading—for this Amendment virtually revives the great issues fought out on the Second Reading—that it will be far
better to wait until this new situation has been created before endeavouring to take a final decision upon a matter so fateful and embarrassing as this. I have never concealed the difficulty and embarrassment in which it places all parties to the Treaty.

Lord H. CECIL: Why, then, did the Government agree to it if it was so embarrassing?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is also a matter we discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: No, never!

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly! I quoted the words of the late Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) who, giving his own independent view of what had taken place, said that possibly unless it had been agreed to, and if we had stopped to communicate, as we should have liked to do, with the Government of Northern Ireland we should have reached no agreement at all. I am certain that is true. At the last moment agreement was reached very rapidly, and almost by surprise.

Sir W. DAVISON: By surrender!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is true, but if that taunt is to be made here those who signed the Treaty with us are facing every day similar taunts which are equally ill-founded. I am afraid it is quite impossible for the Government to accept any of these Amendments which affect the Treaty. It is, quite true that the Noble Lord is to a very large extent expressing what the Government Bad in mind and what the British interpretation of these words would be.

Lord H. CECIL: And the House of Commons.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But we have no right whatever to alter by a British Statute the conditions of this Treaty. The Noble Lord is certainly introducing words which I am advised will have the effect of altering the effect of Article 12.

Lord H. CECIL: Who gives the advice?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have the opportunity of consulting persons learned in the law and who have studied this. The advice I receive is that this would sub-
stitute for the words in Article 12 entirely different terms which may be correct, but in regard to which we have no right to make a new, special, and private pronouncement on this side of the Channel. I hope, therefore, that the Noble Lord will not think that it is out of obstinacy, or foolish desire to close my mind to arguments which can be brought forward, that I have to meet his carefully-drawn Amendment with a direct rebuff. I must lay stress once more upon the fact that having come to an agreement with a set of men who are, I believe, honestly endeavouring to the best of their ability to carry it out on their part, we on this side must not be found wanting in our share of the duty to be done.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on one statement which he made. He said: "We should not have reached an agreement if we had communicated with the Northern Parliament." That represents the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman takes up.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was quoting the late Leader of the House.

Mr. McNEILL: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman quoted the statement of the Leader of the House as a statement with which he agreed. That is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gives to the reproach that he did not communicate with the Northern Government of Ireland. His answer is, that if he had waited to do so, they would not have got an agreement. He does not deny that there was a definite undertaking that they would communicate with the Northern Government. Does he really maintain, in face of the House of Commons, that even the risk of losing the Treaty was a sufficient risk for breaking their word? I want to know whether that is the position of the Government? The right hon. Gentleman is not eager to indicate any dissent from that proposition; therefore, I suppose, I may take it that that is the attitude of the Government

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated dissent.

Mr. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but he has been many times pressed to explain what is his attitude, and considering that it is only this evening that he said that that was a
justification, I think I am entitled to say that that is the attitude which he takes up. That being the plea of justification put forward by the Government, it is exactly the same as the plea that was put forward for the violation of Belgium by the Germans. Nothing is further from my intention than to misrepresent either the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues, and if he can show—I am sure he can show if it is possible to be done—that he has or they have any other justification for a deliberate breach of their word, I am only too anxious to hear it, and I believe the Committee is also. He will have an opportunity, if he likes, of speaking further in this Debate, and he can ask one or other of his colleagues to do so. We are honestly anxious to find out whether there is any other justification than a plea which is so similar to the plea put forward by the Germans, which for years earned the execration of everybody in this House.

It being Eleven of the Clock the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Friday).

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT-CHARGES (RATES) BILL.

Read a Second time; and committed to a Standing Committee.

DENTISTS ACT, 1921 (REGULATIONS).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order in Council under the Dentists Act, 1921, dated the 16th day of January, 1922, approving Regulations of the Dental Board of the United Kingdom, presented on the 7th day of February, may be annulled.
I should like to explain that the Dental Board of the United Kingdom is asking us to-night to pass Regulations which I believe will be very unjust and harsh upon all those dentists who come on the register in the future. The Dentists Act, 1921, permitted certain unregistered dentists to secure registration without
having passed an examination, and the same Act set up a Board of 13 persons to take charge of the registration and generally look after the business of the registration. My complaint is that the Board under these Regulations is charging absurdly high fees. Under the old Act of 1878, which is still in force, the registration fee was £5, and the dentist paid that fee once and for all, and was not called upon to pay further fees in any year after that first year. But by the last Act, the Board has been given power to charge an annual fee for retention on the register, and under the Regulations which the Board have now laid on the Table they are going to charge dentists who come on the register in future, not only the £5 registration fee, but an annual retention fee of £5 in subsequent years. To my mind that is far too high. I should like to know what really is the reason for this differentiation, which is going to affect a large number of dentists all over the country. It is probably going to affect about 10,000 dentists during the next few months. At the present moment there are about 5,000 dentists on the register, and I believe that over 5,000 have joined since the Act was passed last year. They are coming on every day and every week, and therefore, at the figure of £5, you have already got 10,000 on the register, and the Board will receive an enormous sum within the next few months. Year after year that sum of money is going to increase, because as the dentists who came on the register under the old system die out, their places will be taken by new men, who will have to pay this retention fee of £5 annually. Very likely, in a few years' time, as others die off, there will be 20,000 dentists on the register, each of them paying this annual retention fee. That is to say, the Board will be getting from this item alone £100,000 a year. They will get about £50,000 in a very short time.
What I want to know is what really is the Board going to do with all this money? It works out at about £1,000 a week. Is their office going to cost this large sum of money? I should think, putting it at a high figure, that £10,000 a year is plenty in these days for an office of this kind. I should have thought another £10,000 would have been sufficient—say, £20,000 in all, which only works out at £2 per dentist. The Board is asking for a £5 fee every year.
That is not the only revenue that the Dental Board will get. First of all, they are making a pretty handsome profit on the sale of their regulations. I suppose to print a thing of this sort cost about 6d.; they charge 2s. 6d. for it. They have the copyright of it and every single dentist who comes on the register has to have a copy. That is not all. They have a fee of £1 for registering every degree obtained after examination. They have another fee of £1 if a man wants to be entered as a dental mechanic. There is still a whole list of fees, ranging from 2s. 6d. to £5. As a result of all these fees they will get a great deal more than the sum I have mentioned. If one of these dentists is one single day late in paying his retention fee of £5, he is immediately struck off the register, and if he wants to come in again he has to pay a fine of £5 and also pay his retention fee. I maintain that this provision will be a great hardship on the dental profession. This is all the more to be lamented because the Dental Board is really voting to itself a very handsome allowance, in addition to the fees. Each member of the Dental Board gets £5 5s. a day; he also gets extras if he is not residing in London. Every Scottish member of the Dental Board gets £16 16s., plus travelling expenses. I should have thought that very excessive. After all, many members of many professions are only too glad to help their profession gratuitously. It is not as though the hours are very long during which these gentlemen work. I find that the meetings of the Board only commence at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and end at 6 compulsorily under their regulations.
I find that the Board was only formed at the end of November. It met for the first time on 7th December. I have the minutes here of the meeting on 14th February. I find that in about three weeks' time the allowances paid to members of the Board reached £349 16s. 6d. They have also now taken the lease of a vacant piece of land north of the office of the General Medical Council and I suppose they propose to erect a very handsome office upon it. Is that necessary? I very much doubt it. At the present time the Board are sitting at Hallam Street, the headquarters of the General Medical Council. The same registrar works for both, so I should have thought it would have been the most convenient
system to have them under the same roof. All this expense comes out of the fees which are going to be paid by these wretched dentists.
There is no argument whatever, for a huge fee like this. You do not have these big fees in the medical profession. When a doctor gets on to the Medical Register, he pays £5 1s. and that is all. He pays nothing in the way of retention fees, and all he has to do is to notify any change of address. If that is the case with doctors, I do not see why we should put dentists on an entirely different footing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will withdraw these Regulations, modify them on this point and bring them in again. In the Act we passed last year a special section was put in that these Regulations should be upon the Table for 21 days and that was to give the House an opportunity of reviewing the whole question. Therefore we are merely carrying out the intention of Parliament. I have done my beet to show why I think these Regulations should be withdrawn and modified. If the right hon. Gentleman does withdraw them, it does not invalidate any step taken up to this moment. If he withdraws them and brings them in again, everything the Board has done up to the moment remains absolutely good. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to concede this point.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE-WHITE: I beg to Second the Motion.

Sir EDMUND BARTLEY-DENNISS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan), and myself and others have striven for five years to get this Dentists Act through, and we are anxious that at this moment its work shall not be suddenly stopped by the overlapping of these Regulations. I believe, as the matter stands, the law is that one Regulation alone cannot be objected to, but that all the Regulations must go if exception is taken to one by this House. That being so, I hope hon. Members will carefully consider whether in these circumstances it would be worth while to reject all these Regulations and leave the dental profession in a state of chaos for some time to come.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is not proposed.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: It takes time to do this, and it is well to see whether some via media cannot be achieved which may be satisfactory to all parties. Nobody likes less than myself a law of the Medes and Persians which cannot be altered, and if the regulation is unalterably fixed that a £5 fee is to be paid there may be a very large number of dentists some day, resulting in an enormous unnecessary income.
I see litle force in that because I think the idea is that the Dental Board should not accumulate a large capital sum, but should pay its expenses as it goes along out of the annual fees. Therefore it might not be necessary in the future to raise such a large sum as £5 per head from the dentists. Trouble then arises, however, in the matter of jurisdiction. If the Minister of Health had the power of bringing about a revision we should be safe in leaving it in his hands, or if the Privy Council could intervene then the matter would be extremely simple. Either the Minister or the Privy Council could say, "We find you have raised so much money; we think you have enough for your expenses and it is time you revised the fees and lowered them." I understand that the Minister of Health has little or no jurisdiction in the matter and that even the Privy Council itself cannot move after this Motion has once gone through the House. Then what are we to do? I had experience on a previous Bill, not very long ago, in which a similar state of affairs arose, and we got an honourable understanding between this scientific body and the Minister under whose jurisdiction it was generally—an understanding that he should be able to intervene at times and call upon them to revise their Regulations. If some sort of understanding of that kind could be achieved between my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne, who is President of the Dental Board, and the Minister of Health, that whenever they had accumulated a certain sum of money, say, at the end of two or three years, he would promise to put down a Regulation again for the consideration of this House, then we should be perfectly satisfied, and the Regulations would go through to-night. To decide to-night that £5 is too much, without going into the facts, would be a wrong thing for the House to do. I leave the details as to
how much money is required, and why the £5 has been put in, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne to deal with.

Mr. ACLAND: I hope the House will let me, as Chairman of the Dental Board, intervene at this stage, and that it will excuse me if I have to go away without hearing the end of the Debate, as I must catch a train. I understand this Motion to be so worded that, if carried, the whole work of the Board would have to come to an end. It is not a Motion objecting to our scale of fees, but praying for the annulment of the Regulations, and it would not be possible for us to go on at all without the Regulations. That, I think, is the practical effect if the Motion is carried, and I am certain that there is not one dentist in a thousand who wants the work of the Board, which, under the Act of last year, has been very widely welcomed by the profession, to come to an end at all.
On the matter of fees, I am very glad to be able to give what I hope will be a clear explanation of the object of the Dental Board in fixing the fees at their present scale. We have undoubtedly fixed the maximum fee for the original entry on the register and for the annual practising fee that the Statute allows us to fix. The reason for that was not because we thought we should need the money for our own administration or for our own housing, or remuneration, or comfort. We must have premises, and if my hon. Friend who moved the Motion would do me the honour to visit 44, Hallam Street, where we are now housed, he would find such hopeless congestion in the offices of the General Medical Council that he would be the first to say, before he had gone five yards inside the door, that it was impossible to carry on without having fresh premises. We cannot indefinitely go on planking ourselves down in the offices of the General Medical Council, and everyone must agree, I am sure, that we must have offices for the Dental Board. As I say, it is not as if that sort of fee were needed at all, or ever would be needed for any matter connected with our administration. The core of the matter is that the Act itself, in a provision which my hon. Friend did not quote, says that the amount collected in these fees which is not needed for administration is to be
allocated to purposes connected with dental education or research or any public purposes connected with the profession of dentistry.
It was purely because we had in mind the overwhelming necessity for getting funds for the encouragement of dental research and dental training that we have thought it right for the present to fix as high fees as those named. If hon. Members will realise even for a moment the fact, in the first place, that there are no funds whatever for dental education, research, and scholarships from which it is likely that any assistance will be got, and if, secondly, they will realise the very great necessity, from the point of view of public health, of being able to devote funds to dental training, scholarship, and research, they will, I think, realise what was in the mind of the Board in determining, as undoubtedly we did determine, to try to collect a reasonable amount of money for these educational purposes for the first
few years, at any rate, until we saw where we were. There is no doubt what ever, as was pointed out by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, that at the present time there are not enough dentists. There is no doubt that in future we shall not be able to get enough dentists unless we help their education and training, and provide scholarships for those to come to classes who cannot afford to pay the £300 or more which is now required to complete the course of dental training, if it is to be very thorough and very scientific. From the point of view of the improvement of public health in this nation, dental research and education of the highest class—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes after Eleven of the Clock till To-morrow (Friday).